Since I don't really have time to reach the cinema these days, I said to catch back a bit on my older "to watch" list... and the oldest entry was "The Third Man", considered actually a "classic" from the glory days of the noir movie.
Somewhere in post-war Vienna, divided under the control of the Allied troops, we have Holly Martins arriving. An American writer of cheap novels, without a dime, responding to an offer made by a friend for a possible job. Surprise, apparently his buddy Harry Lime is at the cemetery, deceased in an accident just in front of his home. Unhappy with the official version of the events, Mr. Martins starts an investigation on his own in parallel with the one led by a British officer. It doesn't take long to find out that at the moment of the accident there were three men taking care of the body, contrary to the police report that mentions only two - that's where the title comes from. Unfortunately the answer to the question of who's "the third man" becomes predictable quite fast...
The movie includes also a romance, which on one hand fills a bit the gaps, but on the other creates a bit too many unnecessary lengths... After it becomes clear what's "the main twist", all the story gets a bit boring. Besides that, the score, which initially is interesting and catchy, it slowly starts to have more of a lullaby effect. Opposite to that, the camera work is quite ok, and keeps surprising you. Probably one of the best parts in the whole movie is the unexpected documentary value - you actually get to see the Vienna of that time. Unfortunately, my expectations of watching a hitchcockian thriller were quite far from what I saw. And having a subject more simple than it looks to be, I think it also harms the aging factor. Verdict: acceptable, but I think too overrated...
Time for a short effective entry ... "The Big Bang" is a small movie, but with some big names on the poster. It got a small score with the critics, but it has a big knot of tangled threads resulting in a story that you can at least call catchy. The movie's rated R (= packs enough sex and violence to sell) but that's not the reason. It seems hard for me to coherently mix into a subject for a noir movie: corrupted cops, the Russian mafia, blood diamonds, quantum physics, love stories, natural disasters, philosophy, multiple personalities and an eccentric millionaire, all starting with a classic missing person case = the movie's context setting. More precisely, a private eye (Antonio Banderas) is hired by a former life convict, miraculously freed from jail, to find his mail girlfriend, who apparently doesn't seem to exist. And from this we somehow end up in the middle of a particle acceleator (oh yes, the quantum physics part is quite consistent ... at least quantity wise). Indeed, the movie is not perfect, gets a bit over the top with the "noir" stuff ... from the poster to the camera work (although strictly visual speaking looks ok) + of course the script (although here too we can close an eye for some witty punchlines). Overall I can admire the way this salad served in the first half gets a meaning in the second. And it's not because a hot scene in the middle giving a crash course of particles theory in an 18+ :) It's just a weird chaotic story that strangely works ... or simply a mix of some shallow science into dumb action, just enough to result in a watchable guilty pleasure.
Beware ... I'm gonna have a loooong intro :) so have patience with me this time, this movie deserves it ... I've chosen it due to lots of reasons (well .. three) 1. I didn't get to see anything this week, and I don't know if I will so I had to search my memory for something older. And I remembered I mentioned this when I was writing not so long ago about the Oscar nominees for cinematography, which leads to ... 2. Normally, I'm not doing this, and I might actually be sorry that I'm doing it = I'm not spending time analyzing after February what "resulted" from the Oscar related entries. But ... Since I blew it again with the cinematography prediction, for the third consecutive year, I said myself to compensate (sort to speak ...) with something that's absolutely delightful for this part. That would be the second reason for this entry. However, to cool off after the failure of the mentioned prediction, I have to get a bit off topic first: after I watched, live, how "Hugo" grabbed the Oscar for cinematography, I said that I'll give up on predictions .. after which I decided to do a small statistical study and IMDb says something like: Emmanuel Lubezki - "Tree of Life" - 16 wins ; Robert Richardson - "Hugo" - 1 win (the Oscar). One! - a sole award - until this date, worldwide (well, according to what's on IMDb) ... and like this I remembered (again ..) that what I'm doing year by year in February is less important regarding what finally the Academy says, and more .. I repeat myself in order that I'll also get what I'm saying .. and more because it gives the opportunity to write about some movies that usually worth seeing .. And now back on topic, sorry for the unfulfilled Nostradamus frustrations thrown away in public: 3. Finally, the last reason on the list is that "The Man Who Wasn't There" fits perfectly with my current state of spirit. No details, in case it's not yet obvious, because this intro already gets chances to get longer than what follows ...
The movie is probably one of the titles having less impact made by the Coen brothers. But it features the same dark humor, dry and sometimes harsh, brought to a level that's quite rarely achieved these days. The result is a film-noir having an intrigue which is apparently simple at least through the perspective of the characters and of the location. Somewhere, in a small town, in the '60s in US, a barber has a life that appears to be the definition of monotony. During the day he's doing haircuts at the workplace, in the evenings has dinner with his wife and occasionally having invited the couple of owners of the shop where his wife is an accountant. This, despite the fact that the husband from that couple is obviously our's barber's wife secret lover. So .. this goes on day-by-day .. Until one of them, when a client disturbs the normal schedule of the barbershop with a haircut request exactly at the closing time. Fact that breaks into the daily monotonous activity, especially that the client is not a local one but apparently an entrepreneur looking for an investment. 10000$ for a dry cleaners - the last invention on the market - a guaranteed success. What happens next ... it's in the movie :)
I come back with a couple of words about the cinematography. The movie tries to be a noir one for this purpose being switched to black-and-white as main release version. The original is however in color, this is how I've seen it and this is how I recommend it. It is I guess the best cinematography that I've seen in the last 12 months at least. And if some time ago (= "No Country for Old Men" ca sa fiu mai exact) Roger Deakins seemed overrated to me as photography director, during the last year I've started to appreciate him a lot. If the visuals of a movie mean enough to you (= not only the subject is the most important) I recommend from all my heart to see this one. It's not to be missed.
Let me not be misunderstood .. you also have a subject, and it's as tangled and unpredictable apparently as other titles made by Coen brothers. Billy Bob Thornton has an extraordinary role - but the part that lifts it is the script. I'm not always on the same vibe with the Coen brothers, especially when the get into crappy philosophy (see the hugely overrated title above), but in this case the story is said through a monologue .. which monologue, has a series of parts sufficiently deep or if not deep, extremely well placed, to worth some appreciation. I had only one issue with the movie .. the ending .. I would have liked something different - and for this I can say that the rating below is subjectively lower. But risking a sort of spoiler (which I'll try to make as cryptic as possible :) ), I assume that other ending would have contradict the basis idea which is emphasized from beginning to the end in the movie. I like anyway to believe, that it could have been forced a slightly different context ;) keeping exactly the same monologue I was saying, almost unmodified up to the end ...
It's like pulling away from the maze. While you're in the maze, you go through willy nilly, turning where you think you have to turn; banging into the dead ends. One thing after another. But you get some distance on it, and all those twists and turns, why, they're the shape of your life. It's hard to explain. But seeing it whole gives you some peace.
"Drive", as seen by IMDb is the best movie that came out this year. Based on the theory that the titles mentioned there in top 250 worth a look I can confirm it's not lost time (but for the best movie of 2011 up to now I'm a bit reserved ...). As a genre is somewhere between a noir film and a thriller. The story is simple ...
... And it's centered over a short period of time from the life of a guy who's working as daily job in an auto service having occasional contracts for movie stunts, and in parallel he's making also some money as a driver for illegal heists. I wouldn't say more because as I mentioned the plot is quite simple. The base idea is that when things start to get brighter for his future as a possible race driver, his extra hours (= the 2nd job above) that he decides to do for helping somebody, mess up pretty much everything. I'll stop here with the story and I'll say just that I find it interesting that the movie is based on a bool (interesting in the sense that I can't imagine how thick is the book). That's actually the part that for me seemed to drag it down and which stops me to fully recommend it. The subject itself is just too thin, and maybe I wouldn't have a problem with this, but if I think long enough I guess I'll find some other movies that match quite well the same line. Fortunately this subject is after all "placed" inside a movie ...
Which movie I can say it's brilliantly made from lots of points of view. First, I have to say that it's slow paced, which part is clearly sustained by the editing (you have a lot of "nothing happens silent scene" intertwined with the others), and also which part is probably potentially boring for some viewers, but for is ok as it is because it brings a necessary contrast for the violence degree (the movie is rated R by the way). The second aspect is the cinematography by Newton Thomas Sigel, who has some known movies in his CV ("The Usual Suspects", "Valkyrie", etc) but nothing to come close to what you get here. I'll use a cliche because I don't find any other way to express it now: it's a visual feast from the beginning to the end. You have lots of scenes so nicely shot that at some moment I was actually having the impression that I'm seeing something similar to one of those continuous promos you get at the Oscars or in some other places showing something like "well known distinctive scenes from various movies". I could say more here and even try to analyze one or two, because there is also a possibility for interpreting them left quite often, but I'll resume myself to a mini spoiler after the trailer = just half from one of probably the best sequences in the movie. The third point that has a major contribution to the whole result is the score. I would be pleased if I would see at least a nomination at the next year's Oscars for Cliff Martinez, which would confirm after this year's Trent Reznor, that we have a new wave of synth based stuff a la '80s but brought to the level of the current time. Anyway, besides this part the movie has also integrated a number of excellently chosen songs (used in a way that seems a bit like Tarantino style). Overall, it is the best soundtrack I've heard this year ( you can get a glimpse of it below ;) ).
There would be also other stuff to be said. About the sound editing or the actors for instance (I would expect to see some nominations for Albert Brooks, in an excellent villain role), but I don't have much more time for writing :) To draw a line, I still have the minus given by the thin story and also the fact that the movie was mainly appreciated for the directing. I could go with this if I wouldn't have seen not very long ago "Valhalla Rising" by the same guy, and I'm really afraid that here is more about the independent decision of each responsible with the above mentioned parts than a general direction given by the director (and I could also add to have more, that there are a couple of scenes which are exaggerated theatrical, and break a bit the cold noir feeling). Anyway, it's a movie to be seen ;) ...
Posts
