60/60 Review #5: Unforgiven.

Warning: Mild spoilers ahoy.

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

I've said it before, but I'm not a huge fan of westerns. Not that there's anything particularly wrong with them, but being a bit of a Texas rebel, I have an aversion to most things "country." I do, however, enjoy the idea of westerns (outlaws, shootouts, etc.). So I do enjoy some. The point I'm trying to make is that this month wasn't the most exciting one for me on this list. This film, though, has won Oscars and is supposedly the western that even non-western fans enjoy. Maybe that was slightly too much hype for me.

When a couple guys cut up a prostitute's face, the town sheriff, Little Bill (Gene Hackman) refuses to do much about it. This causes the other prostitutes to round up a thousand dollars and hire an assassin to knock off the attackers. This attracts the attention of a young man named Schofield (Jaimz Woolvett) to seek out retired outlaw Bill Munny (Clint Eastwood) in order to bring him along and take care of the men. Bill refuses at first, but decides he needs the money. Before heading off, he picks up his old partner, Ned Logan (Morgan Freeman), who goes along with him. Unfortunately, as is shown by another outlaw by the name of English Bob (Richard Harris), Little Bill's town is a no-gun zone, and anybody they even suspect as an outlaw or assassin will be beaten into submission.

I'm just gonna come straight out with my negative thoughts and get those out of the way. I'm not sure if it was the acting or the script or a mix of both, but the first 30 minutes of this movie (in my opinion) were so bad. I was watching like "Really? This is an Oscar-winning film?" And something that didn't really change throughout the film was its mostly flat characters. If I had to hear Eastwood mention how he used to be a bad person, how he doesn't drink anymore, and how his dead wife rehabilitated him, I was gonna scream. If I had to hear one more time how Morgan Freeman could shoot an eagle high up in the sky... or really any of the other dozen things that were constantly repeated throughout the film ad nauseum. It just got old pretty fast. It's like "OK, I get it already."

Of course, there are some obvious changes within the characters. For instance, you find out the over-the-top boasting young man who clearly hasn't killed a man in his life--gasp--has never killed a man in his life. You also find out that the sharpshooting partner can't shoot so sharp these days. And, of course, the bad-man-turned-good-who-doesn't-drink ends up drinking and become a good gunslinger again. It also bugged me with the running gag about how Eastwood couldn't get on his horse. I mean, the dude lives on a farm in the middle of nowhere and even admits having to go into town from time to time. How is it possible that he became so rusty in horse riding that it would take him 5 minutes just to climb on to the horse?

All that being said, I did end up really enjoying the movie overall. Once Richard Harris (almost unrecognizable to me without his Dumbledore beard) showed up as English Bob, the movie skyrocketed in quality. It's too bad his character wasn't explored more (or even served much of a purpose in the overall plot), because his was my favorite of the whole film. Gene Hackman's Little Bill was an interesting character, too. His was pretty much the only one whose qualities weren't shoved down your throat. In literary terms, he was given much more of an "indirect characterization" as opposed to everybody else's "direct characterization." I don't want to be told you used to be a cold-hearted bastard. Show me. And with Little Bill, we were given a conflicted character--one that wanted to keep peace in his little town, but at what cost? He has all the qualities of a hero, but he uses them in all the wrong ways, making him sometimes more of a villain than those who cut up the prostitute.

Of all the westerns I've watched--and there aren't many--this one falls somewhere in the middle. It wasn't horribly dull despite its gorgeous cinematography (Assassination of Jesse James...). It had some dull moments near the beginning, but they weren't long and drawn out. It also didn't have the most interesting cinematography, but it was good. On the flip side, its characters weren't totally introspective or all that complex within relatively constant action (3:10 to Yuma). They always spoke what they were thinking and they pretty much shoved it down our throats how we were supposed to perceive them.

So overall, the film was pretty good despite feeling repetitive. I actually fell asleep near the end for roughly 10 minutes--but unlike the other films on this list when that happened, I actually skipped back and finished watching it right then and there. That's how invested I was in it. Sure, it had its problems, and I'm probably going to get a lot of backlash from this review with comments like "Well, you just don't understand and/or appreciate the art of the western!" But whatever. I think "No Country For Old Men" would have been a good title for this movie--and more suiting than it was with the actual film--not to mention this had an infinitely better and more satisfying ending. Yup.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. I wish I had a score between this one and the "McLovin." I would have scored this film with that one. But let's just say this is a pretty weak "Whoa." If I gave it a scoring out of 5, I'd say about a 3.7 or 3.8. I know, that's weird... whatever.)

LKMYNTS: 10 Items Or Less.

I bought this movie on a whim a year or two ago at a Hollywood Video closeout sale. It seemed interesting and had Morgan Freeman in it, so why not? When I first watched it, I wasn't underwhelmed, but I wasn't overwhelmed, either. I suppose I was just whelmed. I enjoyed it, but I didn't love it, in other words. However, I just rewatched it for the first time since then last night, and I have to say... I really liked it this time around.

The movie is about an image-obsessed, out-of-work actor (Morgan Freeman) who has been out of the game for 4 years. But now he has the chance to star in a low budget indie film by a young, first time director. He'd be playing a grocery store manager, and being the method actor he is, he wants to visit the same kinda store he'd be in for the movie and research the part. But while he's there, he takes more of a liking to one of the cashiers, Scarlet (Paz Vega), a young woman with a short temper and her own problems to deal with. But when his ride doesn't come back to pick him up, and he forgets his recently changed phone number, he's forced to ask Scarlet for a ride home. But in the process, he forms a friendship with the young woman that he'll never forget.

First, the movie is riddled with great actors, and I'm so surprised it didn't get a bigger release. Of course there's Morgan Freeman and the incredibly underrated Paz Vega. But there's also a fun cameo by Jonah Hill at the beginning as the guy who gives Morgan Freeman a ride to the store. And then there's a blink-and-you'll-miss-it appearance by Leonardo Nam (AKA the best thing in 2004's Breakfast Club heist film, The Perfect Score... as well as a few other films). There's another brief though funny cameo by Danny DeVito and his wife Rhea Perlman.

But really, Freeman and Vega are the heart and soul of this film. Paz Vega, especially, is magnificent. She takes to the role with such a raw emotionality that you really feel for her and her life struggles. Morgan Freeman, of course, is Morgan Freeman. He's awesome. But the humor he adds to the role with his little notes on how people act everyday, or anytime he talks about looks, either his or others. His fascination with the lower- and middle-class world is almost reminiscent of, say, Arthur Weasley's fascination with muggle inventions. Walking into your neighborhood Target is an adventure. And if you were shocked by Freeman's F-bomb in Wanted, you'll be speechless in this film. His language isn't gratuitous at all (not like Travolta's recent turn in Pelham 123). It's all very natural, a rarity with cussing in films.

And that's a really good thing about this film. It's very natural. The story feels like it could happen. While you might not get a visit from an A-list actor wanting to follow you around anytime soon, the characters felt real--again, especially Paz Vega's Scarlet. And the strangest thing about all of this is that it's written and directed by the same guy (Brad Silberling) who directed such films as Casper, Lemony Snicket, and the very recent Land of the Lost. It's like this film doesn't even fall into the same realm as those movies... in story, acting, quality, you name it. I haven't seen all of his films, but I don't think I would be remiss to say this one is his diamond in the rough.

The only thing about this film is its length. The movie is a short 82 minutes, but I think it works... for the most part. I wouldn't have minded seeing more of these characters, but then I feel it could have gone on too long for no reason. The point of the film is the relationship between its two stars, and the relationship does span its course. It has a beginning, middle, and end point. Though the end is simultaneously depressing and heartwarming, which is strange. But on the whole, it worked.

The only other thing to mention that I liked about the film was its meta qualities. If you pay attention, you'll notice that anything Morgan Freeman says about acting or characters or any of that almost always correlates with what's happening in the movie. So it's almost like he's talking about films in general while the film he's in is doing exactly that. And, to me, that's something pretty smart I didn't catch the first time (there was also a lot of humor I didn't catch the first time). It's all very subtle, though.

So I recommend going out and at least giving this a rent and see what you think. The acting in it is brilliant, and the comedy should get a few chuckles out of you. I have no idea why this didn't do better or why Paz Vega isn't a bigger actress (at least in America). It's not like she's ugly. She's like the (lesbian?) lovechild of Salma Hayek and Penelope Cruz... on that note, I, uh... gotta go.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

THE DARK KNIGHT.

Short answer: Yes, the movie lived up to its hype. Now that Falcone is no longer running the mob, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and new District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) are trying to bring down the mob and all crime in general from Gotham. Meanwhile, the now head of Wayne Enterprises, Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), is working with Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) to help bring down a corrupt CEO, Lau (Chin Han), who is working to keep mob money safe in the banks. Similarly, Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) is out to let the people of Gotham know that Batman is still out there somewhere, keeping the peace. However, a new guy in town who calls himself The Joker (Heath Ledger) begins to steal all this mob money and wreck havoc in Gotham. But that’s only the beginning of his plans. What The Joker really wants is to cause massive chaos by bringing together all criminals and luring Batman into the public eye. And it’s all very much taking its mental tolls on Bruce, who must continually seek advice from his butler, Alfred (Michael Caine).

Let’s just get it out of the way, first: Heath Ledger. Wow… just… wow. The trailers don’t even begin to scratch the surface of this performance. All of the best scenes in the movie were the ones that The Joker was in. Every time The Joker wasn’t on screen, I (im)patiently awaited for the next time he would be. It’s unlike anything Heath had ever done before (and, unfortunately, will ever do again), but it was one hell of a role to end with. Before I saw the movie, I kept wondering if or how they were going to explain The Joker’s origins this time around… and I’m actually really glad they did what they did (not to give anything away). And that interrogation scene was just… wow. Really.

As for other acting performance, Aaron Eckhart did an amazing job. I really felt for Harvey Dent (and believed in him), and by the time you-know-what rolls around, I just felt horrible for the man. It’s rare these days for a character whose fate ends up as such garners so much sympathy from the audience. And while I can definitely see Ledger getting an Oscar nom, I’d also like to see Mr. Eckhart get one, as well. Oh, and not to mention that his ‘look’ was totally disturbing.

All other acting was about where it should have been. There was a lot more Batman than Bruce Wayne this time around, which made the 2.5 hour movie go quickly, unlike the previous installment (which has a tendency to drag at times, in my opinion). But this is also one of my negative (yes, I said it) comments about the movie. The beginning of the movie made me feel as if I had missed something. For the first 30 or so minutes, it just felt as if things were going by too quickly, scene after scene, some of which was confusing at first (like the ‘copycats’. Oh, and how they brought back in the Scarecrow was kinda lame). But all of this is quickly overshadowed as soon as The Joker starts to shine (he had me with the disappearing pencil).

The cinematography was great, too. The first movie was more dark and gritty, and this one had a lot more daylight. However, while there was more sunshine, it made up for it with darker characters/villains, as well as some great camera shots that weren’t exactly there in Begins. There were just some beautiful shots that caught my eye in the movie, such as the rotating camera around the characters in a couple scenes, or the movement/focus of the camera on an upside-down character. Some good stuff.

While the first movie had its theme of fear, this movie had its theme of chaos and order, and there was plenty of both. And not only was it evident in the story, but with the camera movement and the music. Everything played its rightful role in the movie, and the movie deserves every praise it gets. Heath Ledger deserves all the praise he gets. And I honestly didn’t watch the movie and try to make parallels between Ledger and The Joker to find how disturbing the role became. Instead, I sat and enjoyed the movie. I didn’t have time to think about those kinds of comparisons. From the awesome opening bank heist to the ending monologue, the movie had me hooked, every minute of it (even when the stupid projector cut off for about 5 minutes during the last five freakin minutes of the movie). It brought out so many different emotions: it was sad, dramatic, action-packed, hilarious, slightly romantic, and disturbing. And I plan on seeing it again. This is one of the best superhero movies ever made, and it’s one of the best movies, if not the best movie, of the year.

Royale With Cheese

WANTED.

Wanted? Wow. Wesley (James McAvoy) is a nobody who works in a cubicle and whose girlfriend is cheating on him with his best friend. His life basically sucks, and nothing special is coming out of it. Then, one day, Fox (Angelina Jolie) shows up and tells him that his father was a great assassin and has recently been killed by a man named Cross (Thomas Kretchmann). So Fox takes him to The Fraternity, a sect of awesome assassins led by Sloan (Morgan Freeman). There, Wesley must train to become a great assassin like his father in order to get revenge and kill Cross.

Let’s start off with the obvious: the action. The action was amazing, and it wasn’t all special effects and Matrix-like stunts. Some of it was just pure fist brawling. The blood was high and splattery, and the other action was intense. My adrenaline level almost never went down. And the big shootout climax reminded me a lot of the climax in Equilibrium in which Christian Bale makes his way through the government building in order to get to his final opponent. It was just plain awesome and fun. And some of the movie’s action was even so hard-hitting that it was cringe-worthy (most of those were in the training scenes/montage).

But one aspect in going into this movie I wasn’t expecting was the humor. This movie was really funny, specifically the voice-over narration from McAvoy. He pulled off the character very well. Whereas The Matrix’s Neo went from plausible badass to absolute badass, Wesley went from complete loser (and in no way badass) to absolute badass, which is a much cooler kind of transition (it isn’t that sort of She’s All That makeover in which the dorky girl is still very hot anyway). As a kind of side note, I thought a few times during this movie how McAvoy could make a really good Spider-Man/Peter Parker. But anyway...

Angelina Jolie was smokin hot in this movie. And the other visual stimuli were great, as well. The special effects were top notch, and while bullet time is no new thing anymore, it was used creatively and well for the moments it was there. The cinematography otherwise was also done nicely, making it appeasing to the eye and rather unique.

If there was anything of note that I thought could have been better, it would be reasonings behind transitional moments of character. For instance, Wesley is totally against The Fraternity, and after noticing a bump in his bank account, he suddenly gets a boost in self-confidence and decides to join in (though I loved the office scene that shows his new-found self-confidence. The end part with the… well… ‘Keyboard moment’… got applause in my audience). And then the next time he gets another boost of confidence just seemed a bit off to me. It just felt like there could have been more to some of those types of scenes. In other words, Wesley’s character development was slightly shaky a few times near the beginning. But I quickly just shrugged it off.

Otherwise, I’m not sure what else to say about the movie. It was super fun action, really funny, great to look at (in more ways than one), and although the ending was predictable (down to the final moments), it was still done rather well. I’d definitely see it again.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. Somewhat ironic rating, huh? Oh, and hooray! For the first time, my P.E.S.T. ratings have both been spot-on).

Bizarre Noir #7: Batman Begins.

Welcome to the seventh (and final) of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoyed the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

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

Batman Begins.

Year of Origin: 2005.

Director: Christopher Nolan.

Why it's bizarre: Superhero!

I’m sure you probably wouldn’t think of a Batman movie as noir, but it is. It has the majority of the common elements. Batman is a detective, for all intents and purposes. He always has a strong female counterpart. He has a troubled past, and he’s a troubled person. And there’s no darker or grittier of a setting than Gotham City. And it has never been grittier than in Batman Begins. Christopher Nolan’s revamp of the series takes us back to the very beginning on how and why Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) first became Batman. After leaving to discover the dirtiness of the world, Bruce is found by Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson), a spokesperson for a group known as the League of Shadows, led by Ra’s Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe). But when Bruce finds out what they’re really about, he backs out and returns home to Gotham to butler Alfred (Michael Caine) and childhood sweetheart Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes). But all is not well in Gotham. Crime is higher than ever with crime lord Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson) and the mysterious workings of asylum owner Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy). So Bruce, with the help of Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), gets the cool gadgets to use as Batman, and then gets the help of policeman Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) to help bring down the crime of the city.

Obviously, there’s a load of big names in this movie, so the acting is phenomenal. Christian Bale, to me, is the perfect Batman/Bruce Wayne. The only acting downfall was Katie Holmes, but even she wasn’t completely horrible.

There were quite a few things when I first heard about this movie that I thought were mistakes. For instance, the look of the batmobile. I thought it was ridiculous… until I saw it on film and realized it was awesome. Also, as much as I love Gary Oldman, he wasn’t exactly how I pictured Gordon, but he pulled it off, as well.

The cinematography is great, dark, and gritty, as it should be. Christopher Nolan has a great style that was really fitting for the world of Batman. And all the action is cool, especially the batmobile chase through the streets and rooftops. Batman is dark and mysterious, yanking people from the sky, hiding within the shadows, etc., which is exactly how he should be.

The only negative I can really give it is that, on subsequent viewings, I find it’s way too long. I always have trouble getting through the whole thing. There’s two interconnected stories in the movie, so I know a lot is important, but there just feels like some of it could have been trimmed a bit to make it slightly shorter. Other than that, the movie is great, and I can’t wait for The Dark Knight.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

Rental Review: Gone Baby Gone.

This is for movies I rent instead of see in theater that I just feel like reviewing for the heck of it… and to start it off, we’ll go with Gone Baby Gone.

Ben Affleck’s directorial debut was even better than I thought it was gonna be. Gone Baby Gone is about two private detectives (and couple), Patrick (Casey Affleck) and Angie (Michelle Monaghan), who are hired to find a missing girl by the girl’s aunt and uncle. Teaming up with police Captain Doyle (Morgan Freeman) and Detectives Remy Bressant (Ed Harris) and Nick Poole (John Ashton), they try to uncover what actually happened to the little girl so they can get her back to her druggie mother (Amy Ryan).

The movie was confusing at times, moreso toward the middle when they’re going through all the suspects and giving rapid-fire gangster names left and right, making it hard to remember who is who and who is doing what. But by the end of the movie, everything is so perfectly explained, the confusion is just a distant issue. But the story is magnificent. There are some great moral dilemmas showcased by the movie, which is great (yet uncomfortable) for the audience, as it makes you think about what you would do in the situation. What is right and what is wrong? Does it change due to circumstance? Those are the main questions the movie asks.

The acting is top notch, with great performances by Affleck, Freeman, and Harris. But the real performance was given by Amy Ryan, and I can see why she was nominated for the part. It might be hard to hear what is being said due to the thick Boston accents (and the fact that Casey Affleck kinda slurs his words together, an issue I had with him in The Assassination of Jesse James). I’ve read about people who had to watch this movie with subtitles so they knew what was being said. But I followed it well enough.

Overall, it was a great movie, and I thought it was a lot tighter and, dare I say, better than No Country For Old Men (great movie, but horrible ending that pretty much ruins the rest of it). I’m now rather shocked that Gone Baby Gone didn’t get more nominations for the Oscars. It really was snubbed.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. In an age where a lot of movies are given odd titles that have little reference to the movie, I was happy when I heard the title of this movie actually used in dialogue within it. You don’t see that incredibly often anymore (“There Will Be Blood”…?).)