Welcome to another installment of the Dailies. I’ve watched another slate of films, so as I’ve done in the previous two Dailies columns in January, I’ll be writing briefly about each of them rather than focusing on a particular picture.
Trailerz
3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Director: James Mangold
Principal Actors: Russell Crowe, Christian Bale, Ben Foster, Peter Fonda
Academy Awards: Nominated (Best Original Score), Nominated (Best Sound Achievement)
For some reason, I absolutely love Westerns. I love the scenery, the time period, the bad-ass villains, the stoic heroes; everything. The reason I mention this is because my opinion on films like these is skewed; if a Western was made with Gilbert Gottfried starring as an expert marksman trying to bring justice to Civil War-era Arizona, I’d probably give it two and a half stars because I liked the horsemanship and the costumes.
The Old West serves as a great place to set morality plays, which are essentially what Westerns are. There are relatively few laws, and people can make a decision on whether to live decently or whether to become cold-blooded outlaws. That there is little in the way of police intervention to persuade anyone not to become a bandit gives the decisions the characters make that much more weight.
3:10 to Yuma eschews this black-and-white Western archetype of heroes and villains. Christian Bale plays Dan Evans, a hard-on-his-luck rancher who offers his services to transport notorious outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) to a train that will take him to Yuma prison. It’s a suicide mission, because Wade’s gang, led by Ben Foster as the completely immoral Charlie Prince, is basically guaranteed to kill everyone bringing Wade to the train. Evans is in it for the money, but eventually, his mission becomes more than that. 3:10 to Yuma is a more thoughtful Western; it’s about a man’s conviction in the face of certain peril, and how even the most ruthless killers can have a code of ethics and humanity that they follow.
Elements of the story are hokey at times, but Crowe and Foster are both tremendous and Bale carries his weight as the protagonist as well. The “guns blazin’” Western is fun and exciting, but 3:10 to Yuma provides a refreshing, serious and thoughtful take on the tried-and-true Western formula. B.
Edge of Darkness (2010)
Director: Martin Campbell
Principal Actors: Mel Gibson, Ray Winstone, Danny Huston, Bojana Novakovic
Edge of Darkness is Mel Gibson’s first starring role since 2002’s Signs, and he probably should have picked a better vehicle with which to make his “triumphant return”. The film markets itself as an action-thriller, and it has all the hallmarks of an action-thriller done very poorly. It’s needlessly complex and confusing, poorly acted, heavy handed and downright boring.
Plot: a heartless, multinational corporation assassinates Gibson’s daughter, an employee of said corporation (though we don’t know they committed the assassination at the time. Spoilerz!) Gibson then spends the remainder of the film looking menacing, brutally interrogating bad guys and those in league with the bad guys, and repeating the question, “Did you kill my daughtah?” in a crude Boston accent. Edge of Darkness is simply laughable; it’s one of those films where very little makes sense from the get-go, yet things get more and more complex in each successive scene until we don’t know what’s happening anymore. Gibson’s final confrontation with the head of that heartless corporation is so ridiculous that the theater was cackling in ironic glee.
Action films are supposed to be goofy, because it’s impossible for them to be anything but. Though Edge of Darkness isn’t an action film in the vein of Stallone or Schwarzenegger, the same sensibility is there, and the film would have been much better off if it took itself less seriously. Edge of Darkness is a completely brainless, stock action-thriller that has the balls to think it’s more than that. D-, saved from an F only for one half-decent action scene and the unintentional yuks it provided.
Shooter (2007)
Director: Antoine Fuqua
Principal Actors: Mark Wahlberg, Michael Pena, Danny Glover, Kate Mara
Shooter is an action-thriller that actually works, somewhat, because it recognizes what it is and doesn’t try to be anything it isn’t. Mark Wahlberg plays a former military marksman who is coaxed out of retirement to assist the government in preventing a presidential assassination. The government representatives, played by Danny Glover and a handful of “I’ve seen this guy in a million things” actors, double-cross Wahlberg and frame him for the assassination attempt. He vows revenge. Easy formula, fun movie, right?
For the most part, it is. Shooter recognizes it’s a big dumb action movie and it works well within those boundaries. It’s actually a little smarter than I imagined, and Wahlberg explaining the logistics of being a sniper and some of his government entanglements are enjoyable, well-written, and thought-provoking. There are times when Shooter attempts to be a little more grandiose than it should, and at those moments the film suffers, much like Edge of Darkness suffered the whole way through. A director should recognize what their film is and be careful not to stray too far away from that or pile a bunch of sentimentality or clumsy political messages on top of it. Fuqua (director of one of my favorite films of all time, Training Day) largely handles this balancing act well.
Unfortunately, Shooter really falls apart towards its conclusion. Wahlberg is assisted in his revenge crusade by rogue FBI patsy Michael Pena, and he teaches Pena the art of being an expert sniper in about five minutes. Additionally, the film takes a legitimately gruesome turn at the end, with Wahlberg brutally slaughtering those who wronged him. I was unprepared for such an ending, with the hero gunning down his enemies in cold blood. These types of actions, where the hero essentially behaves as a villain, always create distance between hero and audience; the hero is supposed to be above such acts. C.
The Illusionist (2006)
Director: Neil Burger
Principal Actors: Edward Norton, Paul Giamatti, Jessica Biel, Rufus Sewell
Academy Awards: Nominated (Best Cinematography)
The Illusionist provides us with a character whose aura of mystery and secrecy is so well-written and well acted that it drives the entire film. Edward Norton plays the magician Eisenheim, whose magic tricks are unlike anything the world has ever seen. He arrives in turn-of-the-century Vienna to perform these tricks, which baffle and delight audiences and bring him under the eyes of chief of police Paul Giamatti.
Norton, as the magician, really doesn’t have a lot to do with creating the aura around his character. The computerized tricks themselves are the real stars of the show, with Norton causing an orange tree to grow out of a pot instantaneously and painting a portrait without brushes or paint. The Illusionist uses Paul Giamatti’s character to convey what we’re thinking while watching it; how does he do all of these things?
The film, at its heart, is a love story. Jessica Biel is the female accompaniment to Rufus Sewell, the crown prince of Austria. Biel and Norton had been in love growing up together, and most of the movie is concerned with Sewell and Norton’s competition for her affection. Giamatti carries out Sewell’s dirty work, constantly harassing and interrogating Eisenheim and trying to bring he and Biel’s relationship to an end.
The Illusionist is a truly enjoyable story with what I’d consider a weak ending. I won’t give it away, but it works to demystify Eisenheim and actually portray him as less sympathetic and less likable. It’s a swerve that could have been avoided altogether (in fact, this ending is not present in the Steven Millhauser short story “Eisenheim the Illusionist”, after which the film is based). The enjoyment of The Illusionist comes from that mystery and wonder, and that the film would undermine its own great attribute was disappointing to me. B.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
Directors: Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones
Principal Actors: Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Michael Palin, Terry Jones
I want to start this review by saying that I have the utmost respect and admiration for the Monty Python franchise. Though I can’t say I’m overly familiar with all of their work, I do enjoy their Flying Circus show, which occasionally airs today on BBC America. I respect what Monty Python did because they created something unique, witty, funny and everlasting.
I say this because while watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail, I wasn’t laughing. I understood the jokes, and I know what was supposed to be funny, but I didn’t find much of it funny at all. Some bits went on way too long when they weren’t particularly funny in the first place. Others were so hopelessly goofy and esoteric that they didn’t have a chance of being funny anyway. It was confusing to me; everyone seems to love this movie, but it’s hard to understand why.
That’s not to say there aren’t winning scenes in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The jokes work best when they come from out of nowhere, like the regular tearing down of the “fourth wall” and the self-aware references to the film itself. I also actually enjoyed the fantasy elements of the film. It’s not meant to be taken seriously, but amazingly the Pythons did create a fun, fantastical world, even if it’s only meant to be taken as a gag.
Ninety minutes of sight gags and humorous asides, without one or two gut-busting laughs, is difficult to sit through, and Monty Python and the Holy Grail definitely drags at points. These antics are funny in a sketch comedy format, but difficult to maintain in a theatrical film. Though I wish it weren’t so, I found myself asking; what’s all the fuss about? C.
John Lacey
No comments:
Post a Comment