60/60 Review #27: The Crying Game.

Warning: If, for whatever reason, you don't already know the twist in this movie (or anything about the movie in general)... there are spoilers ahead.

--------------------

For those of you who follow my podcast, you might remember an earlier episode with one Travis McCollum. During his turn on The Tower, he had to find the pattern between a bunch of movies... and one of those movies was The Crying Game. A running joke came from that episode when he couldn't figure out the answer--that all the movies had full-frontal male nudity--and all he could remember (and shared at great length) about said movie was, and I quote, "penis." Fortunately, I already knew the twist, and this didn't spoil it for me. And I don't believe it spoiled the overall movie for me, either.

The movie begins as IRA terrorists take hostage a British soldier named Jody (Forest Whitaker). One of his captors, Fergus (Stephen Rea), befriends him--until he's given orders to kill him. One of Jody's last wishes is for Fergus to find his lover, Dil (Jaye Davidson), and make sure she's alright. But then Fergus starts to fall in love with Dil... until he finds out her secret. The film co-stars Miranda Richardson as Jude (another IRA terrorist) and Jim Broadbent as Col (a bartender).

This is one twisted romance. A man falls in love with a woman who was in love with the man he was hired to kill, only to find out the woman is actually a man... and then get caught back up in IRA situations. And it all culminates in a scene where Dil is practically insane. I was fascinated by the relationship through the bulk of the film. However, the climax of the movie just seemed... off to me. It didn't feel right for the character. Not to mention the whole third act after the IRA peeps come back into the story just felt cliche and shallow, just added back into the story because there needed to be some action conflict.

The best part of the film, however, was the first act of the film. The bond formed between Forest Whitaker and Stephen Rea is fantastic and heartbreaking. But I do wish there would have been more focus on this part of the film, to make it seem like 3 days had actually passed. It also would have helped to know what was going on. Maybe I missed some throw-away line after he was taken, but I still have no idea why they took him hostage. The whole first 30 minutes felt rushed, despite the fact the relationship and chemistry between Rea and Whitaker was fantastic. It just would have helped the believability of going to find Dil and the conflict faced at the climax of the first act.

So yeah, the best thing about the movie was the relationships between both Fergus and Jody and Fergus and Dil. But everything else was just... OK. It was a good movie overall--I just think it could have been better. The acting was great from Stephen Rea; Forest Whitaker's strange British accent bugged me, though--and that says a lot coming from the master of bad British accents. Jaye Davidson was quite a find. Even after the movie, I had to look up and see whether he really was a guy or not. But yeah, good movie... not great, but good. And I could see why the only thing Travis could remember about this movie was... penis.


I Am McLovin!

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE.

If I could summarize my feelings on this movie in 4 words, it would be: I blame Dave Eggers. To get it out of the way, I haven't read this beloved children's book, so I'm not familiar with the source material. That being said, let's get into the movie. Max (Max Records) has a crappy life with a mother (Catherine Keener) who loves him and a teenage sister who acts like a teenage sister with friends who apologize when they accidentally upset him. This, of course, is all reason for Max to go ape-s*** and be as rude as possible, including demanding fresh food, biting, and immediately running away when told he's acting out of control. Finding a strange boat, Max travels to a far-away island where he finds giant creatures, including the angry Carol (James Gandolfini); his partner, Douglas (Chris Cooper); the paranoid downer, Judith (Catherine O'Hara); her partner, Ira (Forest Whitaker); the bullied one, Alex (Paul Dano); the shy bull (Michael Berry Jr.); and the outcast, KW (Lauren Ambrose). Max pretends to be their king so they won't eat him, and, in the process, destroys their relationships further. Sounds like a grand time to me!

Before I can explain why I blame Dave Eggers, I must divulge the positive. The movie has wonderful visuals. Between the creatures (a mix of animatronics and CGI), the cinematography, the locations, and just anything to look at in general, it was gorgeous and gorgeously shot. Especially once Max gets to the island, it really does seem like a world unto itself.

There is also the great acting (and voice acting). Max Records does a brilliant job holding the whole movie on his shoulders. He's essentially the only human actor in the majority of the film. And for a child actor (hell, even in the realm of adult actors), he does one hell of a job. I also felt that the voice actors fit very well with their roles (the only awkward one was Lauren Ambrose as KW. I don't know why, but the voice seemed too young or light or something to me).

There's even the good soundtrack to match with the film. Now, outside the film, would I love the quirky soundtrack (like I did for, say, Juno)? I'm not sure. But it sure felt good and natural in the context of the film.

All that being said, with my liking of just about everything of the movie... why does the film leave me so... blah? I figured it out as soon as the credits started rolling and I saw the film was co-written by one Dave Eggers. And then it all clicked. I pondered the tone early on in the film, but I was sure of the issue as soon as I saw the name. You see, a while back, I attempted to read Eggers' memoir, A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. With a promising title like that, plus ecstatic reviews talking about the humor, plus a really promising introduction in the book, I expected a lot from it. Then I started reading chapter one. It was one of the most depressing things ever. Sure, he tried to mix in some humor here and there, and sometimes it worked, but for the most part, it was just uncomfortable and awkward. There were some major tonal problems that made it hard to keep reading (which I didn't).

I feel the same issues followed him here. Again, I'm not sure how the original source was, but this didn't feel like any beloved children's book to me. It was too dark and adult to be for kids, but too--how can I put this--crazy and adolescent for adults. It's hard to describe. In particular the crumbling relationships between the "wild things" made it very adult with some deep undertones. Not to mention the beginning of the third act is essentially a horror movie.

It doesn't help that I was never sure who to root for or who to hate. There is no good guy or bad guy, essentially. But it was really hard to buy Max's dilemmas and empathize with him, because he mainly came off like a selfish brat. And Carol wasn't much better (granted, I'm aware they're mirrored characters... actually, I'm aware all the Wild Things are mirrors to Max's emotions, but still). When you don't really have any full-out likable characters, it's hard to enjoy a movie. And that's even worse for a supposedly children's movie.

There's also a strange transition between worlds. The beginning (which takes almost too long to get going) tries to set everything up as reality. Then it's just like BAM, we're in the boat heading for the island. Is it a dream? Is it real? Who knows? Then, when the ending comes (which isn't nearly happy enough for a children's movie), it isn't much better.

Overall, the visuals (in every aspect, including creature effects)? Oscar-worthy. The acting? Brilliant. The music? Good. So I blame the writing, mostly. The tone is too out of whack. I didn't really care about much, and I found myself constantly looking at my watch. I've read reviews saying that the magic of the book has been removed, and I could see how that's possible. I've also seen reviews saying themes from the book have been ignored, which I can also see possible. For such a beloved children's book, I know something had to be lost in translation. Because on all the technical levels, the film works outstandingly. But on a story/writing level, it really needed some polish. At least that's my opinion.

I Am McLovin! 

(P.S. Confused by my scoring? Don't be. While the review was a bit negative, I did enjoy things about it. It's just that the two sides balance out and bring it down to this level).

Bizarre Noir #5: Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai.

Welcome to the fifth of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

----------------

Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai.

Year of Origin: 1999.

Director: Jim Jarmusch.

Why it's bizarre: Hip-hop listening black assassin who follows code of the samurai.

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to see a movie that mixes gangster rap with the Italian mob and an African American hit man who follows the code of the samurai? And if you have, have you also wondered what it would be like if Forest Whitaker was said hit man? Then you’re in luck! Ghost Dog (Forest Whitaker), after being saved by mafia member Louie (John Tormey), becomes the man’s personal hit man, and Louie becomes Ghost Dog’s ‘retainer’. You see, Ghost Dog lives by the way of the samurai, a very philosophical code for life. However, eight years after their fateful meeting, Louie contracts Ghost Dog to ice Handsome Frank (Richard Portnow), one of their own. Nobody was supposed to be there… except a mafia bosses’ daughter, Louise (Tricia Vessey), was there to witness the entire event. So now the bosses are forced to try to find this mysterious Ghost Dog (as he’s only contacted through carrier pigeon) and get rid of him. Unfortunately, they picked the wrong guy the mess with.

Ghost Dog is not an action movie by any means. It’s more of a drama and/or philosophical movie. Each little section is separated by voice-over narration from Forest Whitaker reciting something either from philosophers or from the code of the samurai. Otherwise, Forest rarely talks. The only people I think he ever talks to are Louie, a young girl, and his best friend—a Haitian ice cream vendor named Raymond who only speaks French. And that latter relationship is the most endearing. They never understand what the other says, but they both get each other completely. And just the look on Raymond’s face at the end is just… well, you’d have to see it. The relationship between Ghost Dog and the girl, Pearline, is great, too. Pearline is really just like a young, female version of Ghost Dog himself.

There’s a lot of symbolism in the movie, from bear references to the cartoon clips that the mafia guys watch to… well… just about anything. The whole movie is very symbolic and very well done. And the link between hit man and samurai is a great connection, with their ways of life and even the way Ghost Dog handles his gun.

As for the acting, let me just say that this was one of the first movies that turned me on to the amazing acting ability of Forest Whitaker. Pearline is your typical child actor, giving a few stiff lines. And while the cheesy repeated lines in different languages between Ghost dog and Raymond could make it a bit hard to watch at times, the two characters were still endearing to each other. (Now, could I have thrown in any more metaphorical innuendo for an erection?).

Really, the only thing that might bring this movie down a small notch would be the very goofball mafia men. They really aren’t your typical mafia guys. They watch cartoons, sing along to rap, argue with a kid throwing toys at them, and any other number of emasculating or embarrassing things. They seemed to be more like mafia wannabes than actual hard-asses.

But as for the action, for the very little there is, it’s pretty cool. The way Ghost Dog goes about killing people is really cool, and sometimes imaginative (talking about the pipe/sink kill here). And Ghost Dog can really be a badass, especially with his cool little machine thing that can start cars and figure out codes. But, as I said, there’s not that much action to really talk in depth about, so I’ll just leave it at that.

Overall, if you go into this expecting more of a slow drama with a lot of symbolism and philosophy, along with some great acting by Forest Whitaker, then you won’t leave disappointed, much like the people who go into the movie thinking “hey, it’s a movie about a hit man. There should be some awesome action!” Think of it more along the lines of a very much more indie version of Leon, and with even less action than that. Oh, and the soundtrack is composed by the Wu Tang Clan’s the RZA. So yeah, anyway, it’s a great movie that I really recommend.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

VANTAGE POINT.

I will warn you now that there is going to be quite a bit of comparison in this review. The reason is because the idea behind this movie’s technique is rare, but has been done a few times before… imagine seeing a new movie that plays backwards: it would be impossible to review it without comparing it to Memento.

Anyway, like a few movies before it, such as 11:14, Go, Rashomon, and even the first half of Atonement, Vantage Point’s technique has the audience see an event from one perspective, rewind, and then see it all over again from another perspective until all the truth is out on the table. This time, the President (William Hurt) is shot during a peace conference, and the movie takes us through every important Point of View (POV), from a secret service agent (Dennis Quaid) to a tourist in the crowd (Forest Whitaker) to the bad guys at the end, until we know the entire story.

The one thing that this movie does differently than its predecessors (except maybe Atonement) is that it only shows a character’s POV up until right before their big climax, then it stops, rewinds, and starts again from somebody else’s POV, waiting to use all the climaxes together at the end. Another difference is that this has to be the most action-packed attempt at this technique I’ve yet to see. The action almost literally never stops, and it all culminates into a really cool car chase scene at the very end.

One of the improvements and drawbacks happens to be in when they do the rewinds. The point of multiple POV movies, at least in the past, has been to conceal a mystery until the final POV. But in doing this, each POV is fully completed upon their turn. This is the innovation and creativeness with this technique: having the ability to write a story where you can tell a full story from different POVs completely without giving anything away until the end. This movie simply stops right before something vital is revealed and keeps the viewer waiting until the very end of the movie when it compiles all of the climaxes into one uber-climax. It is an improvement because it keeps the audience in suspense until the end of the movie to find out what exactly happened with each character’s story. However, it’s a downfall because it can potentially annoy its audience (quite a few in my theater were very vocal about it, even after the fourth or fifth rewind). It also seems to say “we can’t write it well enough to keep everything a surprise if we finish each story individually.” I have to admit, though… the climax was rather suspenseful, and everything did come together fashionably well. It’s really a double-edged sword the way it was done.

Also, because the movie simply revolves around an action-packed sequence of roughly 10 minutes each (except for the longer climax POV), there’s very little time for character development… as there is none… but that’s really not the point of this movie, either. Along with no character development, the acting tends to be kinda bad every now and then, specifically from Dennis Quaid (moreso toward the end of the movie, where he really has some cheesy lines).

I found that the best POV and character was Forest Whitaker’s. He seemed to be the easiest to latch on to and connect with, probably because he’s the everyday tourist, the most human and relatable. He also, I believe, gives the best performance of them all in the movie. Though that is to be expected; I mean, come on, it’s Forest Whitaker.

The ending isn’t too predictable unless you paid attention to the movie trailer. But seriously, I even had it spoiled for me a few months back and I still didn’t expect it, mostly because I had both forgotten and gotten too wrapped up in the action to really think about it. The only bad thing about the big reveal is that it’s not really explained much, so it almost doesn’t make much sense, but I went with it anyway.

So overall, it was a great action movie that took a cool idea and put it to decent use (the thing that bothered me most is that it’s seemingly taking credit for creating this technique, when it’s been done a few times already, but with less commercial films). The acting could have been better, but this wasn’t made to be an Oscar winner. It’s a summer blockbuster that was accidentally released about 4 months early, apparently. And if you liked how Vantage Point was done, go see it done better with Go and 11:14 (they’re like this movie, but with less action and deeper characters). Time to rate this bad boy…

I Am McLovin!