50/50 Review #24: Scotland, PA.

The last film of Rachel's/Shakespeare's Month is actually not only not in Elizabethan English, but also based on a play I've actually read/am familiar with. Here we take a more modernized look at the tragedy of Macbeth... by turning it into a dark comedy. Taking place in 1970s Scotland, Pennsylvania, this film tells a story surrounding the burger joint Duncan's, owned by Norm Duncan (James Rebhorn). Under him are married couple Joe 'Mac' McBeth (James LeGros) and Pat McBeth (Maura Tierney), who just want to move up in the world, especially after three hippies (Timothy Levitch, Andy Dick, and Amy Smart) give him the idea that he (Mac) could. So after killing Duncan, the McBeth's take over the business from his sons, Donald (Geoff Dunsworth) and Malcolm (Tom Guiry), and start to do really well. At least, until Lieutenant McDuff (Christopher Walken) shows up looking for answers. It also doesn't help that their fry cook, Anthony 'Banko' Banconi (Kevin Corrigan), is a little suspicious of them himself.

Updates of stories, particularly Shakespeare, are almost always a ton of fun. You always try to make connections to the source material, and it's always a hoot seeing how they make it work in the present (or at least in a more modern time period). I haven't really read the play in years, so I actually did a refresher before really getting into the movie. And I'd say it did a pretty bang-up job. Of course, I was disappointed not to hear even any attempt to add in even hints of famous lines "Double double, toil and trouble... Something wicked this way comes" or "Out, out, damn spot!"). But they still managed to play really well with the slipping mental state of the McBeth's. Oh, and I guess the curse of the Scottish play lives on... considering this was the one and only movie this director ever made.

The cast was fine with it, too. The language was updated, which on the one hand made it infinitely easier to follow... but at the same time saddened me that I didn't get to hear Christopher Walken do Shakespeare. Though Walken was fantastic and goofy, as per usual. Maura Tierney stole the show as the obsessive and then slowly-going-insane "Lady Macbeth" character. But somebody please tell me that I'm not the only one... who couldn't stop thinking about Mark Wahlberg anytime James LeGros was on screen, which was the majority of the movie. Seriously, as long as you weren't right in the guy's face, he looked almost exactly like him. Not to mention it would be a perfect character (or at least version of this character) for Marky Mark to play.

Otherwise I don't have many thoughts on the film. Of this month of Shakespearean films, it might not have been the technically best, but it was certainly one of if not the most entertaining. Again, that might have something to do with the fact I actually knew the play this time around. (Also, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the others weren't entertaining--except Richard III... sorry, Rachel--I particularly loved Much Ado About Nothing, and Titus was also bizarrely fascinating). But on the whole, while not perfect, this film was really fun.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. And that's it for Rachel's/Shakespeare's Month! It was certainly an experience! I honestly didn't know what I would feel going into this month, but on the whole it was pretty enjoyable... with just a little stumble here and there. Next month belongs to Dylan with a few of his personal favorites. So let's hope we're still friends after it's over.)

50/50 Review #22: Richard III.

It crossed my mind while watching Much Ado About Nothing last week that it might be of benefit to have read and/or at least know the plays before having seen these films. But by the time that one finished, I found that theory wasn't necessarily true. Now I'm beginning to rethink that conclusion. Altered to 1930s England, this particular story follows Richard (Ian McKellen), a man who wants to be king, so he has to kill everybody who stands in his way. At least, I think that's what it's about. The film also stars Annette Bening, Jim Broadbent, Robert Downey Jr., John Wood, Maggie Smith, Dominic West, and a thousand other people.

If you haven't inferred my main issue with the film yet, it's that I had no effing clue what was going on. And it wasn't a language issue, either. I actually understood pretty much everything. But for some reason, I couldn't follow the movie at all. I got the idea that Richard wanted to be king and had to get rid of his brothers and whoever else would ascend the throne before him... but that's it. I grasped the basic idea, but absolutely nothing else that was happening. I even tried to read the plot summary of the play on wikipedia, hoping that would give me an easier understanding in the most basic way possible. But no. For some reason, I found that just as confusing and hard to follow. Part of it had to do with the fact I couldn't figure out the characters, what their relation to each other was, what their individual motivations were, and what they were doing during any scene. And due to all of this, I had difficulty grasping the point of updating the setting to 1930s England (I eventually understood the Nazi symbolism, but that's about it). And the more I didn't get about everything, the more frustrated I became. And the more frustrated I became, the more I just didn't care.

The acting is solid, however. Also, the overall filmmaking is rather solid. My favorite aspect--something Rachel might have thought when suggesting this--was the breaking the fourth wall aspect. Richard talks directly to the camera throughout the movie, recalling the method of asides in plays when the characters remove themselves from the setting and speak directly to the audience. And since that goes into meta territory, I'm inclined to like it automatically. But on the whole, the acting, style, and meta qualities were really the only things I liked about it.

In the end, I just kept asking myself "What's the point?" That's the real question I wanted answered. I didn't follow the story because I couldn't grasp the point of whatever scene I was watching at any given moment. I didn't know how each individual scene played into the overarching narrative, what its point was in the grande scheme (except for the initial killing scenes, of course... later killings went back to the "I don't follow" category). And because of this, I feel having studied or known the story prior to seeing this film would have made it a much better viewing. By and large, I'm not blaming the film for my dislike, but rather my lack of prior knowledge (though to be fair, shouldn't a film be able to stand alone without needing said prior knowledge?). Or maybe I'm just a dumbass.

The Zed Word

(P.S. This is NOT a rating on the quality of the film; rather, it's just a rating on the level of enjoyment.)

50/50 Review #21: Much Ado About Nothing.

So, despite having a degree in English and Literature and having taught high school English, I actually haven't read all that much Shakespeare. Of course I know Romeo and Juliet rather well, as well as a little Macbeth, Hamlet, Julius Caesar, and King Lear... but that's about it, and honestly I don't remember all that much about the latter two (I also know the basic stories of Taming of the Shrew, Midsummer Night's Dream, and Twelfth Night only due to other modernized adaptations). I never had to read anything else (excluding the sonnets), nor did I do so on my own time. So, needless to say, I had no idea what the story to this was going into it.

The story begins as Don Pedro (Denzel Washington) comes to reside at Leonato's (Richard Briers) for a while with his men. Amongst them is Claudio (Robert Sean Leonard), who immediately falls in love with Leonato's daughter, Hero (Kate Beckinsale) and must marry her. But while waiting for the wedding, the household plans to play cupid and hook up Benedick (Kenneth Branagh) and Leonato's neice, Beatrice (Emma Thompson), both of whom are shrewish bachelors-for-life. Unfortunately, Don Pedro's bastard brother, Don John (Keanu Reeves), plans to seek revenge on Don Pedro and mess up their plans, and it might work... if inept nightwatchman Dogberry (Michael Keaton) doesn't get in the way. The film also co-stars Imelda Staunton as Margaret, who I believe is a handmaiden to Hero (or something along those lines).

I'm sure when you think of Shakespeare, Denzel Washington, Michael Keaton, and Keanu Reeves aren't the first people to come to mind. I mean, seriously, somebody had to have this conversation: "We need a villain for this Shakespeare movie... and he must be brothers with Denzel Washington. I've got it! Keanu Reeves!" Seriously though, despite the unusual casting, it all rather works. Keanu is broody, and he doesn't talk a whole lot, which is probably why he gets away with it. Denzel is absolutely fantastic in the role and should probably do more Shakespeare, to be honest. Of course, Branagh and Thompson feel like they were transported from Elizabethan England and perform effortlessly. But it was Michael Keaton who I felt stole every scene he was in. He was quite hilarious and had me laughing quite a bit.

In fact, the movie itself had me laughing out loud at numerous points. It took me a while to get into the language--Elizabethan is tricky enough to get used to, but Shakespearean dialogue is so fast and so full of wit and puns that if you stop paying attention for a second, you'll miss out on the meaning of the conversation. Sure, you can get the gist of it, but you'll lose out on the wordplay (and I like my wordplay). But once I was focused, I was entranced. The film moved so quickly, it didn't feel like an hour and 50 minutes. And a large portion of that had to do with the film's charm and humor and overall language.

That upside is also the downside. At times things did move so fast I had a hard time keeping up or knowing what was going on. In fact, I had no idea what was going on in Keaton's first two scenes that I had to look it up. I actually thought he was a bad guy or thief or something like that, only to discover quite the opposite. And unless I missed something, I'm still not sure Don John's motivation outside of just feeling like he gets the short end of the stick in relation to his brother. And if that's the case, it's a weak motivation (not really a fault of the movie, I suppose, though). I mean, on the whole I followed the film fine, but there were scenes here and there that totally lost me and I had to get a quick summary to figure out what was happening.

It's just a happy movie. Even when it's being serious and dastardly plots are afoot, you know nothing bad is really going to happen. It's a great romantic comedy from Shakespeare (even if it follows the Shakespearean tropes of falling madly in love at first sight). The performances are great all around. A good film all around, and I do recommend it to those who like the genre (Shakespearean language or not).


A Keanu 'Whoa'


(P.S. That rating is just coincidental.)