TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE (2004)
Directed by Trey Parker
Starring the voices of: Trey Parker, Matt Stone, Kristen Miller, Masasa, Daran Norris, Maurice LaMarche, Phil Hendrie
Team America is an elite fighting force protecting the world from Terrorists. But when one of their own is killed on their latest mission, the search is on for a replacement. Enter Gary Johnston (Parker), cracker-jack Broadway actor who regularly tears the house down in the hit show "LEASE" (featuring that catchy tune, "Everyone Has AIDS"). Backstage, Gary is approached by Spottswoode (Norris), who believes Gary's acting talent can help Team America go undercover and infiltrate the Terrorist organization. Little do they know that the Terrorists are being backed by North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il (also Parker), in an effort to rain chaos upon the world.
This is a film by the creators of South Park, so you know going in that it's not going to be for everyone. Of course, it looks like a film for everyone, what with the Thunderbirds-style puppets that are used, but that's part of the game. Be aware going in that you will be treated to an almost non-stop torrent of swearing, toilet humor, brutal violence and a puppet sex scene so graphic that, if it were done with real people, would probably be illegal. Strange, considering puppets have no genitalia.
But the thing about all of this is, it's absolutely hilarious. The fact that they're using puppets makes the over-the-top nature of the film that much funnier. And Parker and company dont' shy away from the fact that they're using puppets. During the first five minutes, I was actually amazed at the amount of detail they were able to achieve. Of course, there are certain things that puppets can't do: namely, have a realistic fight scene. However, it does make the "Bullet-Time" effect a helluva lot cheaper to shoot.
Now you would also expect this film to be a sort of jingoistic, ultra right-wing Fox News editorial piece - especially considering its epic theme song (NSFW) - but it's really not. In fact, it's really hard to put a finger on the film's political leanings. Yes, Team America are an arrogant bunch who cause a lot of collateral damage (like blowing up the Eiffel Tower and the Giza Pyramids, for starters) in their quest to spread freedom and democracy. But their actions bring the scorn of Alec Baldwin (La Marche) and his Film Actors Guild (figure out their unfortunate acronym for yourself), a group of left-wing pacifists which include Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn and Matt Damon (whose only line is "Matt Damon!"). Even Team America's hideout is suicide-bombed by Michael Moore. And yet, after all this, there's still the task of stopping Kim Jong-Il from taking over the world. And that may be the film's point: You may not like America - you may even hate America - but even though they seem like violent jerks, they still are the only ones willing to fight against the kinds of megalomaniacs you just can't reason with.
Or maybe the film's point was to blow stuff up, make fun of self-important celebrities and show graphic puppet sex. You be the judge.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Monday, August 29, 2011
Day 67: We Must Not Confuse Dissent With Disloyalty
GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK (2005)
Directed by George Clooney
Starring: David Strathairn, George Clooney, Jeff Daniels, Robert Downey, Jr., Patricia Clarkson, Alex Borstein, Frank Langella
It is the mid-1950's, and the host of CBS's See It Now, Edward R. Murrow (Strathairn), usually content to interview celebrities, is concerned about the growing threat that Senator Joseph McCarthy poses due to his Communist witch-hunt. Murrow and his producer Fred Friendly (Clooney) decide to go against the Network's (and sponsors') wishes, and rush to the defense of Air Force Lieutenant Milo Radulovich, who had been discharged seemingly without reason. The Air Force says it was because of his "Communist leanings," but there is no evidence to support the accusation. Murrow and his team give Lt. Radulovich a platform to defend himself. He also covers the Senate hearing of another suspected Communist, Annie Lee Moss, a small, aging black woman who happened to work at the Pentagon. However, after coming to the defense of these people, Senator McCarthy and his lawyer Roy Cohn begin targeting Murrow and CBS.
Good Night, and Good Luck is very much a lesson on how to do a period piece right. Everything about this film conveys the feeling of the mid-50's: it's shot in black-and white, everybody smokes, the soundtrack is all smooth, big-band jazz. One of the best choices in the film was the decision to use archival footage of Senator McCarthy, Roy Cohn, Milo Radulovich and others, rather than try to re-create the scenes with actors. It works quite well not only as a period piece, but as a history lesson. Anyone interested in the "Red Scare" of the 50's and of the McCarthy witch-hunts and the House Un-American Activities Committee can get a wealth of information from this film.
However, there is one part where it doesn't work so well. Clooney is so interested in getting the look, the feel and the message right, he neglects to inject any kind of emotional anchor into the film. Yes, it is (for the most part) historically accurate, but there's no real emotion. We watch what Ed Murrow and his team do, but we don't really know why they do it. We know they feel it's the "right thing to do," but they just do it, and don't explain why. There's very little motive to what anyone does. Everyone just sort of does what the script tells them to do, and the effect is pretty lifeless.
But if you just focus on the film as a time capsule, it works very well. Also, the attention to detail is pretty amazing. This is the sort of film that directors like to watch. The public at large may not cotton onto all the politics and lengthy speeches, but the film works equally well if you're interested in either history or cinema.
Directed by George Clooney
Starring: David Strathairn, George Clooney, Jeff Daniels, Robert Downey, Jr., Patricia Clarkson, Alex Borstein, Frank Langella
It is the mid-1950's, and the host of CBS's See It Now, Edward R. Murrow (Strathairn), usually content to interview celebrities, is concerned about the growing threat that Senator Joseph McCarthy poses due to his Communist witch-hunt. Murrow and his producer Fred Friendly (Clooney) decide to go against the Network's (and sponsors') wishes, and rush to the defense of Air Force Lieutenant Milo Radulovich, who had been discharged seemingly without reason. The Air Force says it was because of his "Communist leanings," but there is no evidence to support the accusation. Murrow and his team give Lt. Radulovich a platform to defend himself. He also covers the Senate hearing of another suspected Communist, Annie Lee Moss, a small, aging black woman who happened to work at the Pentagon. However, after coming to the defense of these people, Senator McCarthy and his lawyer Roy Cohn begin targeting Murrow and CBS.
Good Night, and Good Luck is very much a lesson on how to do a period piece right. Everything about this film conveys the feeling of the mid-50's: it's shot in black-and white, everybody smokes, the soundtrack is all smooth, big-band jazz. One of the best choices in the film was the decision to use archival footage of Senator McCarthy, Roy Cohn, Milo Radulovich and others, rather than try to re-create the scenes with actors. It works quite well not only as a period piece, but as a history lesson. Anyone interested in the "Red Scare" of the 50's and of the McCarthy witch-hunts and the House Un-American Activities Committee can get a wealth of information from this film.
However, there is one part where it doesn't work so well. Clooney is so interested in getting the look, the feel and the message right, he neglects to inject any kind of emotional anchor into the film. Yes, it is (for the most part) historically accurate, but there's no real emotion. We watch what Ed Murrow and his team do, but we don't really know why they do it. We know they feel it's the "right thing to do," but they just do it, and don't explain why. There's very little motive to what anyone does. Everyone just sort of does what the script tells them to do, and the effect is pretty lifeless.
But if you just focus on the film as a time capsule, it works very well. Also, the attention to detail is pretty amazing. This is the sort of film that directors like to watch. The public at large may not cotton onto all the politics and lengthy speeches, but the film works equally well if you're interested in either history or cinema.
And we're back.
Sorry for the lengthy delay, everyone, but a lot of interesting things have been happening lately.
First of all, the final film of my "3-hours-or-more" series (which was to be Malcolm X) was supposed to be shipped by Netflix, but there was apparently a "short wait" for it. So they sent me Munich which, at 2 hours and 49 minutes didn't quite meet my criteria. But in the spirit of just getting something done, I tried to watch it anyway. And the disc was too damaged to play properly. Yeah.
So I sent it back, hoping that Malcolm X had finally come in, but it hadn't. So they sent me Goodnight and Good Luck. At this point, I had abandoned by hopes of actually finishing my previous set list, so I popped this very succinct film into my DVD player and watched it.
Still no Malcolm X though. In fact, unless I find a copy in the library (which has been a fruitless search, so far), I think I can give up on that one.
So there are more reviews coming up, because I just realized I have 34 more movies to watch in about a 12 week span. It's do-able, but it won't be easy.
So Up and At Them.
First of all, the final film of my "3-hours-or-more" series (which was to be Malcolm X) was supposed to be shipped by Netflix, but there was apparently a "short wait" for it. So they sent me Munich which, at 2 hours and 49 minutes didn't quite meet my criteria. But in the spirit of just getting something done, I tried to watch it anyway. And the disc was too damaged to play properly. Yeah.
So I sent it back, hoping that Malcolm X had finally come in, but it hadn't. So they sent me Goodnight and Good Luck. At this point, I had abandoned by hopes of actually finishing my previous set list, so I popped this very succinct film into my DVD player and watched it.
Still no Malcolm X though. In fact, unless I find a copy in the library (which has been a fruitless search, so far), I think I can give up on that one.
So there are more reviews coming up, because I just realized I have 34 more movies to watch in about a 12 week span. It's do-able, but it won't be easy.
So Up and At Them.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Day 66: I Like The Stink Of The Streets
ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA (1984)
Directed by Sergio Leone
Starring: Robert De Niro, James Woods, Elizabeth McGovern, James Hayden, William Forsythe, Larry Rapp, Joe Pesci, Burt Young, Danny Aiello, Tuesday Weld
Back in the early 70's, Sergio Leone, director of the famed "Dollars Trilogy" (A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, The Good, The Bad and the Ugly), was on the short list of directors Paramount wanted to direct The Godfather. For his own reasons, Leone turned them down. So Paramount got B-movie director and Roger Corman protege Francis Ford Coppola, and the rest is history.
Turning down The Godfather had always been one of Leone's biggest regrets. As such, as far back as he could remember, he always wanted to make a gangster film. So when he came across the novel The Hoods by Harry Gray, he jumped at the chance to make it into a film.
Seeing as how this is a Sergio Leone film, I'm changing up my format just a bit for this review. You can listen to this music while you read it.
THE GOOD
As expected, this is a movie by a master filmmaker. Never mind the fact that it's four hours long; this is basically a clinic on how to make movies right. Just by watching this one film (more than once, and taking extensive notes), you can learn everything there is to know about the art of filmmaking. Everything here works.
THE BAD
"WHAT? You thought there was something BAD about a Sergio Leone film!? Blasphemy!"
Hold your horses, guys. I already went on and on about how great Leone was. But there was a lot about this film that just didn't sit right with me.
I said that watching this movie will teach you all you need to know about artful filmmaking, and it's true. But to do that, you will have to sit through nearly four hours of horrible people doing despicable things. The main character, Noodles (De Niro), is one of the most unlikeable protagonists I have ever seen in a movie. He and his partner Max (Woods) have absolutely no redeeming qualities. They are greedy, violent, sex-obsessed hoods, and even though their friendship and ultimate falling out are intriguing, it is nearly impossible to like them.
THE UGLY
Noodles is the worst of the two characters, and the movie focuses on him. While he starts off as a tough little punk in a Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn, he quickly turns into a monster. Though he does a lot of horrible stuff, the worst is when he rapes his childhood sweetheart Deborah (McGovern), and seems to have no qualms about it. And the problem is that Leone seems to linger on this scene (and others like it) for just a bit too long, making the animosity grow toward the character we're supposed to be the most interested in.
However, there may be a reason for all this focus on the depravity of these characters. It's often been said that The Godfather was an extremely romantic take on Mafia families. Yes, they were criminals, but they were also bound together by a strong family tie. There's none of that here in Once Upon a Time in America. These guys are the worst of the worst. And Leone does do quite a good job at deconstructing the Mafia mythos, just as he had done with the Cowboy mythos many years earlier.
But at least the Man With No Name had a few redeeming qualities. I just wanted someone to stab Noodles in the eye.
So yes, this is a masterful film by a masterful filmmaker. But it's one of the toughest movies I've ever sat through. And it's got an ending that may frustrate (even infuriate) many viewers, and it's the subject of the question that James Woods says he gets asked the most often: Did Max die at the end? If you think you're up to it, watch it and try to figure it out for yourself.
Directed by Sergio Leone
Starring: Robert De Niro, James Woods, Elizabeth McGovern, James Hayden, William Forsythe, Larry Rapp, Joe Pesci, Burt Young, Danny Aiello, Tuesday Weld
Back in the early 70's, Sergio Leone, director of the famed "Dollars Trilogy" (A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, The Good, The Bad and the Ugly), was on the short list of directors Paramount wanted to direct The Godfather. For his own reasons, Leone turned them down. So Paramount got B-movie director and Roger Corman protege Francis Ford Coppola, and the rest is history.
Turning down The Godfather had always been one of Leone's biggest regrets. As such, as far back as he could remember, he always wanted to make a gangster film. So when he came across the novel The Hoods by Harry Gray, he jumped at the chance to make it into a film.
Seeing as how this is a Sergio Leone film, I'm changing up my format just a bit for this review. You can listen to this music while you read it.
THE GOOD
As expected, this is a movie by a master filmmaker. Never mind the fact that it's four hours long; this is basically a clinic on how to make movies right. Just by watching this one film (more than once, and taking extensive notes), you can learn everything there is to know about the art of filmmaking. Everything here works.
THE BAD
"WHAT? You thought there was something BAD about a Sergio Leone film!? Blasphemy!"
Hold your horses, guys. I already went on and on about how great Leone was. But there was a lot about this film that just didn't sit right with me.
I said that watching this movie will teach you all you need to know about artful filmmaking, and it's true. But to do that, you will have to sit through nearly four hours of horrible people doing despicable things. The main character, Noodles (De Niro), is one of the most unlikeable protagonists I have ever seen in a movie. He and his partner Max (Woods) have absolutely no redeeming qualities. They are greedy, violent, sex-obsessed hoods, and even though their friendship and ultimate falling out are intriguing, it is nearly impossible to like them.
THE UGLY
Noodles is the worst of the two characters, and the movie focuses on him. While he starts off as a tough little punk in a Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn, he quickly turns into a monster. Though he does a lot of horrible stuff, the worst is when he rapes his childhood sweetheart Deborah (McGovern), and seems to have no qualms about it. And the problem is that Leone seems to linger on this scene (and others like it) for just a bit too long, making the animosity grow toward the character we're supposed to be the most interested in.
However, there may be a reason for all this focus on the depravity of these characters. It's often been said that The Godfather was an extremely romantic take on Mafia families. Yes, they were criminals, but they were also bound together by a strong family tie. There's none of that here in Once Upon a Time in America. These guys are the worst of the worst. And Leone does do quite a good job at deconstructing the Mafia mythos, just as he had done with the Cowboy mythos many years earlier.
But at least the Man With No Name had a few redeeming qualities. I just wanted someone to stab Noodles in the eye.
So yes, this is a masterful film by a masterful filmmaker. But it's one of the toughest movies I've ever sat through. And it's got an ending that may frustrate (even infuriate) many viewers, and it's the subject of the question that James Woods says he gets asked the most often: Did Max die at the end? If you think you're up to it, watch it and try to figure it out for yourself.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Day 65: They Can Only Kill Me With A Golden Bullet
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)
Directed by David Lean
Starring: Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif, Alec Guinness, Anthony Quinn, Claude Rains, Jack Hawkins, Jose Ferrer, Anthony Quayle, Arthur Kennedy
A few years back, when I was first becoming interested in the study of film, I had a list of films that many considered to be "required viewing." All of the typical films were on there: Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Seven Samurai, The Good, The Bad and the Ugly and the like. During this time, I came across Lawrence of Arabia. I tried to sit through it, but the long, tedious shots of the desert and the snail-like pace at which the film moved were too much for me, and I gave up before the Arab Revolt had taken Aqaba. Man, this movie is overrated, I thought.
Flash forward to now. I have just sat through the entire 3 hours and 47 minutes of Lawrence of Arabia, and I have just one question for the Me-of-the-Past: What were you thinking?
It would be tedious and rather pointless for me to sit here and reiterate what every film textbook ever written has said a hundred times over, but...this is a great film. And it's one of those films that film enthusiasts drool over. It's wonderfully and nearly flawlessly made. It's got some of the best cinematography in history. The shots of the desert are legendary. Even the music is great, with a theme song that I'll be humming to myself the next time I'm in Arizona. It really is the total package.
But for me, the thing that really made Lawrence of Arabia interesting was Peter O'Toole's performance. It's one thing to make a character interesting, but O'Toole makes T.E. Lawrence almost hypnotic. Everything he does has such purpose and weight behind it that you can't wait to see what he does next. But the thing about T.E. Lawrence was that he was, by all accounts in real life, a riddle wrapped in an enigma. And O'Toole plays this up to the hilt. There are very few times in the film when one can tell whether or not Lawrence is being sincere, or more specifically, what his plans and intentions are. Even real-life accounts of Lawrence's life were said to be greatly exaggerated by the man himself. So is what we see really what we get? Only Lawrence knew for sure. And O'Toole plays up the mystery.
When a movie gets up to and past the 3-hour range, it is of the utmost importance to keep the audience interested. I admit that a few years ago, my attention span was rather short, and that was to my own detriment. Because of that, I missed out on some great films. And I think the movie-going audience at large is missing out as well. Movies are supposed to take us on journeys, and journeys are not about destinations. They're about the experience we have getting to the destination. We should all sit back, relax and enjoy the scenery once in a while.
Directed by David Lean
Starring: Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif, Alec Guinness, Anthony Quinn, Claude Rains, Jack Hawkins, Jose Ferrer, Anthony Quayle, Arthur Kennedy
A few years back, when I was first becoming interested in the study of film, I had a list of films that many considered to be "required viewing." All of the typical films were on there: Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Seven Samurai, The Good, The Bad and the Ugly and the like. During this time, I came across Lawrence of Arabia. I tried to sit through it, but the long, tedious shots of the desert and the snail-like pace at which the film moved were too much for me, and I gave up before the Arab Revolt had taken Aqaba. Man, this movie is overrated, I thought.
Flash forward to now. I have just sat through the entire 3 hours and 47 minutes of Lawrence of Arabia, and I have just one question for the Me-of-the-Past: What were you thinking?
It would be tedious and rather pointless for me to sit here and reiterate what every film textbook ever written has said a hundred times over, but...this is a great film. And it's one of those films that film enthusiasts drool over. It's wonderfully and nearly flawlessly made. It's got some of the best cinematography in history. The shots of the desert are legendary. Even the music is great, with a theme song that I'll be humming to myself the next time I'm in Arizona. It really is the total package.
But for me, the thing that really made Lawrence of Arabia interesting was Peter O'Toole's performance. It's one thing to make a character interesting, but O'Toole makes T.E. Lawrence almost hypnotic. Everything he does has such purpose and weight behind it that you can't wait to see what he does next. But the thing about T.E. Lawrence was that he was, by all accounts in real life, a riddle wrapped in an enigma. And O'Toole plays this up to the hilt. There are very few times in the film when one can tell whether or not Lawrence is being sincere, or more specifically, what his plans and intentions are. Even real-life accounts of Lawrence's life were said to be greatly exaggerated by the man himself. So is what we see really what we get? Only Lawrence knew for sure. And O'Toole plays up the mystery.
When a movie gets up to and past the 3-hour range, it is of the utmost importance to keep the audience interested. I admit that a few years ago, my attention span was rather short, and that was to my own detriment. Because of that, I missed out on some great films. And I think the movie-going audience at large is missing out as well. Movies are supposed to take us on journeys, and journeys are not about destinations. They're about the experience we have getting to the destination. We should all sit back, relax and enjoy the scenery once in a while.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Day 64: An Eye For An Eye Only Makes The Whole World Blind
GANDHI (1982)
Directed by Richard Attenborough
Starring: Ben Kingsley, Roshan Seth, Saeed Jaffery, Alyque Padamsee, Candace Bergen, John Gielgud, Martin Sheen, Trevor Howard
There are two ways I could talk about this film. I could either A) talk about the technical aspects of the production, which would bore all but a select few of my readers; or, I could B) just talk about how this film made me feel, which makes more sense. After all, this film wasn't made so a bunch of film techies could sit around on a Friday night talking about how great the camera work is. Gandhi was made to elicit an emotional reaction, which is exactly what it does.
In fact, my own reaction to the film is really one of awe. Kingsley's portrayal of Gandhi was done with great reverence, and it's astounding how much he actually looked like Gandhi. He really got lost in the role, which helped me get lost in the story. Keeping the audience's interest is key in any film, but even more so when you've got something important to say.
Of course, there is a difference between Gandhi the man and Gandhi the character, and I think what we get here is more of a character. But we don't get a characature, which would have defeated the whole purpose. However, Attenborough doesn't shy away from the fact that he's making a narrative film and not a documentary. And it is an epic film, at that. But he borrows more from David Lean than Cecil B. DeMille, which is a good thing. It's actually a bit of an oddity to have a movie that this big (30,000 extras were used for the funeral scene alone), but doesn't become cartoony. That danger must have been on Attenborough's mind quite a bit. I imagine it would be on the mind of anyone who would make a movie about such an important subject.
I realize I wrote more about the impact the movie had on me than the movie itself, but then again, it's that kind of a movie. Yes, it's beautifully shot, wonderfully acted and lovingly made, but it really is more than the sum of its parts. It's the story of a man who changed the direction of his country, but in the end, couldn't change human nature. But the fact that he tried is what made him so noble and such a fascinating figure.
Directed by Richard Attenborough
Starring: Ben Kingsley, Roshan Seth, Saeed Jaffery, Alyque Padamsee, Candace Bergen, John Gielgud, Martin Sheen, Trevor Howard
There are two ways I could talk about this film. I could either A) talk about the technical aspects of the production, which would bore all but a select few of my readers; or, I could B) just talk about how this film made me feel, which makes more sense. After all, this film wasn't made so a bunch of film techies could sit around on a Friday night talking about how great the camera work is. Gandhi was made to elicit an emotional reaction, which is exactly what it does.
In fact, my own reaction to the film is really one of awe. Kingsley's portrayal of Gandhi was done with great reverence, and it's astounding how much he actually looked like Gandhi. He really got lost in the role, which helped me get lost in the story. Keeping the audience's interest is key in any film, but even more so when you've got something important to say.
Of course, there is a difference between Gandhi the man and Gandhi the character, and I think what we get here is more of a character. But we don't get a characature, which would have defeated the whole purpose. However, Attenborough doesn't shy away from the fact that he's making a narrative film and not a documentary. And it is an epic film, at that. But he borrows more from David Lean than Cecil B. DeMille, which is a good thing. It's actually a bit of an oddity to have a movie that this big (30,000 extras were used for the funeral scene alone), but doesn't become cartoony. That danger must have been on Attenborough's mind quite a bit. I imagine it would be on the mind of anyone who would make a movie about such an important subject.
I realize I wrote more about the impact the movie had on me than the movie itself, but then again, it's that kind of a movie. Yes, it's beautifully shot, wonderfully acted and lovingly made, but it really is more than the sum of its parts. It's the story of a man who changed the direction of his country, but in the end, couldn't change human nature. But the fact that he tried is what made him so noble and such a fascinating figure.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Epic Win
Taking a bit of a vacation right now, but I will be back next week!
My next group of films will test the strength of my bladder and the length of my attention span, as they are all films that are 3 hours long or longer. On the block are:
Gandhi
Lawrence of Arabia
Malcolm X
Once Upon a Time in America
My next group of films will test the strength of my bladder and the length of my attention span, as they are all films that are 3 hours long or longer. On the block are:
Gandhi
Lawrence of Arabia
Malcolm X
Once Upon a Time in America
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)