50/50 Review #43: Out Of Africa.

This... is one really long movie. Going in, I knew very little about the film except the setting and its stars and that there's a romance. And now that it's over... all I'll probably remember is the setting, it's stars, and that there was a romance. Karen (Meryl Streep) moves to Africa with Baron Bror (Klaus Maria Brandauer). But after he sleeps around with others and leaves her, she begins a love affair with Denys (Robert Redford).

And that's the story of this just shy of 3-hours movie. I'm a sucker for a good romance (I said good romance. Not like Twilight or any of that crap). At least for me, a romance is as strong as its female lead and as fascinating as its male lead (I suppose for a LGBT romance, it's as strong as its main character and as fascinating as its romantic lead). Where something like Twilight fails (and it fails in many, many places... but speaking from a romance perspective) is that Bella is about as weak as you can get in a main character of any variety, romantic or otherwise. She's a cardboard cutout with a hole at the head for women to poke their faces through and take her spot (I won't get into the whole "terrible person" thing). And then you have Edward, who is just not a fascinating character, either. He's a creepy, sparkling, asshole stalker. And both of these characters exist purely for the other. They have no lives outside of this romance, and everything they do revolves around it--it's even brought up within the books themselves at one point. The story is a feminist's nightmare.

Don't worry, I'm not going to say this is Twilight in Africa. Not even close. Robert Redford has the best character in the film, and I'm constantly drawn to his charisma (as always). But there's one scene in this movie that basically says everything I felt about this relationship and about Karen. They're sitting by the fireplace, and Redford wants to go on a Safari. Streep doesn't want him to go since he just came back from one. They argue, and Redford accuses Streep of confusing what she needs with what she wants and how she always has. And Streep doesn't help her case when every word out of her mouth shows how she lives to be in a relationship--that's her sole purpose in life. If she's not married, she needs to be looking to marry. You can call it a view of the times, but it bothered me. I had a lot of trouble getting behind her character and didn't find her very likable (except when she was interacting with the natives). So what I'm getting at here is that the movie was fascinating and enjoyable when Redford was on the screen. But when it was just Streep... it took a lot more work to keep itself going for me.

One thing that really helped was the setting. The visuals of this film were gorgeous, from the landscapes to the wildlife. Anytime the focus was brought to the scenery or, say, the lions (particularly the lions), my attention shot up considerably. Also, as stated before, anytime there was attention given to the tribespeople, I found myself interested. I liked the deal she makes with the boy with the hurt leg. Anything to deal with that was fascinating. Unfortunately, that didn't come up all that often (at least considering the running time).

Otherwise, I'm struggling finding much to talk about. Redford is great, but he's barely in the film until the last hour. Up to that point, it felt like it was going to be a long haul with only some occasional good scenes (anything in the previous paragraph). It's definitely not a bad movie, as evidenced by its multiple Oscar wins. It just had a romance I had trouble with due to a character I couldn't entirely get behind, and a length that was far too long (...and don't get me started on the accent). But the setting, visuals, and overall culture of it was great. If anything, see it for that. Well, and Robert Redford... but that's kind of a given.


Stop Saying OK! OK.

60/60 Extra: The Hot Rock.

So, I bumped this review back to give myself more time to finish the novel. Well, that didn't happen. Life got busy. And I didn't get incredibly far, either. But from what I got from it, I enjoyed it. The novel is a totally quick and quirky comedy heist story with larger-than-life characters and scenarios. I was particularly excited for the film version, as well. First off, it stars Robert Redford, who I've loved in both films I've watched of his for this project. Second, the screenplay was done by William Goldman, who also wrote/adapted Butch Cassidy, Heat, and The Princess Bride. So I figure if anyone can capture this novel with its characters and dialogue, he can. To top it all off, the premise is outstanding.

So color me disappointed.

The Hot Rock gives us the story of John Dortmunder (Robert Redford), a recently released criminal who immediately gets a heist job from his brother-in-law, Kelp (George Segal). A man named Dr. Amusa (Moses Gunn) wants a special diamond being held in a museum because it is symbolic for his people in an African nation. So they put a team together that also includes Murch (Rob Leibman) and Greenberg (Paul Sand). Unfortunately, despite their brilliant plans, things don't go so well, and everything starts going downhill. This leads them on a wild mission that forces them to have to pull heist after heist to try and steal this diamond again and again.

Perhaps it's better I didn't finish the novel, as I might have enjoyed the film even less. This novel would probably be excellently adapted in the hands of, say, The Coen Brothers (though it doesn't typically meet their standards of violence or absurd endings). This particular adaptation, however, really failed to grab the quirk and humor of the novel. I did notice it was somewhat there in the script, so maybe it wasn't totally the fault of William Goldman.

This brings me to my next point--the actors/directing. The story is played so straight and the actors so flat, it's no wonder the movie felt lifeless. That was my biggest problem. There was no fun or excitement that would typically go with, really, any heist comedy. None of the actors have chemistry with each other. There's no life to their words (especially Redford, which saddens me). At the very least, Dortmunder is the straight man of the bunch, but he's also like the Danny Ocean. But he was not smooth or charming. He was just... dull.

The music (or lack thereof) is also partly to blame. When there was a soundtrack, it never really did anything to elevate the mood. But the majority of the time, there was nothing. Now, I've run across a handful of films on this list alone that have been able to pull off the nearly empty soundtrack yet still give us a tight film. This was not one of them. It desperately needed... something.

I do think, though, on the whole, that it wasn't a bad film. It just could have been so much better. As it is, it's OK. I know I said a bunch of negative, but it was still somewhat fun to see the different heists and whatnot (even if I don't agree with how they do the last one). And you might wonder what my thoughts would be had I not compared it to the book. Keep in mind--I only got maybe 25% through the book. Even if I hadn't read what I did, I still would have felt the same about the blandness, especially in comparison to its potential based on the premise alone. Oh well...


Stop Saying OK! OK.

60/60 Extra: The Sting.

After I watched Butch Cassidy, I got quite a few recommendations to watch The Sting, another Newman-Redford pairing. Well, with it being labeled a comedy, and this being comedy month, I thought it a perfect time to check it out. And to top it all off, it's a con artist film, which are way up there with heist films (because they're essentially the same idea)... and I love those.

This one is about Johnny Hooker (Robert Redford), a rookie con man looking for revenge after a close friend and partner is killed. He seeks out Henry Gondorff (Paul Newman), a skilled grifter who used to work with the man that had been killed. Together they plan on pulling the perfect job, one to get some revenge and quite a bit of money off Doyle Lonnegan (Robert Shaw). Helping out are other grifters like J.J. (Ray Walston) and Twist (Harold Gould). But they have to stay careful, as a detective named Snyder (Charles Durning) is after Hooker, too.

I'd like to say straight-up that, while I was told the chemistry between the two leads was even stronger in this film, I have to disagree. I felt their bond was stronger in Butch Cassidy. However, I'm not saying that's a negative or a detractor from this film at all. The acting was still very strong in this film. Though I think it's particularly funny that, in the aforementioned western, Newman was the good looking charmer and Redford was the gruffer one. Here, they've switched that around. Redford is the charmer, and Newman is much more gruff.

I really liked how the whole film was edited into chapters like a book. Every section told its own part of the job, letting the audience know what was happening, step-by-step. I just thought that was a fun and creative way to organize the film.

The tone of the film kind of bounces between lighter fair (as it is labeled a comedy) and some darker bits that involve hitmen and death and all sorts of stuff. It really worked, keeping you on your toes. It was never something like an Oceans film, where you knew it was all part of the job and they would somehow come out on top. There was this more gritty element that really left you feeling uncomfortable in the sense that anything could really go wrong... but what if this is all part of the plan? That's something I loved about the movie. It kept me guessing.

The job itself was very layered, giving us multiple steps to get through to get it done. Like I said before, it was hard to figure out if what was going on was true or just part of the scam. There were double and even triple crosses going on. And although I know nothing about racetrack betting (which the scam centers around), I was easily able to follow the film, as the job wasn't so much about the details of the horse races as it was the scam itself. It allowed me to follow along easily.

Before I start sounding redundant, I'm just gonna end it there. I've seen plenty of heist and/or con artist films, but this one was damn near perfect. The acting is great. The story is great. The job itself is great. The way the film is edited together is great. There are plenty of nice twists and turns. And, of course, the final payoff makes it all worth it. This was such a fantastic film, and I'm so glad it was recommended to me.


Royale With Cheese

60/60 Review #6: Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid.

Due to Netflix, I had to skip around the month just slightly, but that's OK. I said from the beginning the middle films of each month might not be reviewed in the exact order I listed them (it was originally showing Good/Bad/Ugly next, but I've switched the list around to match the review order). So let's look at this newest one first by looking at what I've reviewed thus far. So far I've seen the bad (Plan 9); I've seen what could have been much better (Westworld); I've seen the "alright" (Close Encounters): I've seen the pretty good (Unforgiven); and I've seen the really good (Body Snatchers). I think it's about time I watch one that I just flat-out love.

Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) and the Sundance Kid (Robert Redford) are two outlaw train robbers that go on the run once the man who owns the railway they keep hitting gets upset and hires the best lawman and tracker in existence. And when even that doesn't work, they travel--along with Etta Place (Katharine Ross)--to Bolivia to start anew. Though that doesn't exact meet their expectations, either.

This film is everything I love about the idea of a western: outlaws, bank heists, train robberies, horseback chases, gun fights, card games, spunky prostitutes, old time school teachers, Indian trackers, invincible lawmen, and a handful of wit. The story is pretty simple. It's pretty much a heist-gone-wrong film, and we all know I love my heist films. And once this particular heist goes wrong, the titular characters are pretty much on the run from then on.

The acting pretty much rests on the shoulders of Paul Newman and Robert Redford (and slightly Katharine Ross). Paul Newman is great as the "brain" and leader of the gang, smooth talking and without much of a care. Robert Redford is his "brawn," the better gunslinger who doesn't say much and, when he does, is awfully blunt. They're yin and yang, which means they're complete opposites yet can't exist without the other. Their chemistry is strong as they play off each other, such as when Paul Newman says something witty in response to Robert Redford's stoicism or bluntness.

I was also incredibly surprised by the cinematography. There are some great shots in this movie. Of course, if this film were made today, the landscapes would look even better, but that's not necessarily what I mean here. Just the placement of the camera or a certain shot is fantastic.

If there are any major negatives, it would be that some scenes tend to go on a little long, two in particular. First, the opening credits sequence wasn't quite my style, though I do give it props for creativeness. The biggest offense for me, though, was the picture montage around the hour mark that transitions between the two parts of the film (going from the States to Bolivia). Something about it just rubbed me the wrong way. I guess I kinda liked the idea of what they were doing, but it just went on a bit too long for my tastes. Still, the whole hour before that moment and the next 40-45 minutes after it was too great for that 5 minutes to bog down my opinion of the film too much. The other moment that maybe could have trimmed a few seconds was the bicycle sequence, but it was fun enough to where it didn't really bug me (especially in comparison to the picture montage).

The writing, of course, is solid. It was written by the same guy who wrote The Princess Bride, so you know there's some good dialogue involved (I know this one came first, but still). I think that's a good reason why the characters of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid work so well together--their given dialogue is so strong, and it's delivered well by the two leads.

I know I'm not saying much, especially in comparison to the other films I've reviewed for this list. The movie was a lot of fun, and I think it deserved the Oscars it won. I also have to say that--if you don't count Cars (and why would you?)--this film was my first Paul Newman film, so I'm really looking forward to Cool Hand Luke later on next year. So yeah, there were a couple things that I think I might have tweaked about this one, but the bulk of it far exceeds those complaints.


Royale With Cheese