I remember seeing this film at Celebration Cinema's in Lansing, MI with my then fiance Heidi and my good friend Todd Gray. For those of you who have not had the pleasure of meeting Todd Gray he is the movie expert turned AMC General Manager who I look up to and strive to be like each and every day. To simply refer to him as buddy in any post would be unjust.
Anyway, what I remember about that day is leaving the theater filled with a sense of joy for life that is not commonly felt in late November when there is a foot of snow on the ground. I also remember getting a great picture of me and Todd with me lifting him up in the air in bear hug. I mention all of this for two reasons: the first is that it's a good memory and second because I still feel that sense of joy for life when I still watch this film.
The film stars Johnny Depp in what may be his most subtle and perhaps best performance in a career that is filled with memorable performances. He plays J.M. Barrie, a playwright whose most recent play has received harsh reviews. While searching for his next idea for a play Barrie has a chance encounter with the Davies family. Barrie is learning to deal with the emotional difficulty of receiving poor reviews while Sylvia (played by Kate Winslett) and her boy's are learning to live the pain of losing their father. Together, Barrie and Davies clan find a way to help each other.
What follows a an a front to the limitations of life and death. The Davies clan provides Barrie with an inspiration to create a world unlike one that anyone has ever seen. That world is Neverland and at it's center is Peter Pan. In return for the inspiration the Davies provide Barrie he helps to renew the boys imagination and love for life.
The film is a dramatization of the creation of Peter Pan. It does not sugar coat the problems Barrie has with his wife Mary or the troubles facing Sylvia Llewelyn Davies both socially or physically. Because of that it is not always a happy or pleasant film. But the magic of the film is that it manages to bring to life the spirit of the Peter Pan story more successfully than any other film version I have ever seen. Director Marc Foster shows us Neverland with a visual style that is fantastic and watching this film again I can understand what it means to J.M. Barrie to live forever. Foster is able to seamlessly mix tragedy with joy in a way that reminds that even death is just another beginning. For me, it's a reminder that no matter what hardships we face there is no reason to stop living.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Field of Dreams
I have to admit this is a hard one. As baseball films go I'm not sure this one cracks my top five and yet I always get chocked up with when Kevin Costner asks his dad if he wants to have a catch.
At the center of my ambiguous feelings towards this film is it's star Kevin Costner. It's hard to believe now that there was a time when Costner was one of, if not the biggest star going. From the Untouchables to Avatar's prequel (Dance's with Wolves) to Robin Hood and even JFK it seemed like Costner's films were event films that people talked about long after seeing them. Of course over the last 15 years Costner's work has been spotty at best (I do think Tin Cup is a guilty pleasure movie) and his acting ability has become subject to ridicule.
That leads me to ask the following question, how does Field of Dreams hold up over time? In truth I don't think it holds up very well. There is still a spirit and a love for baseball that resonates throughout the film but something is lost in the pro-hippy vibe and supernatural hijinks's that prompt an Iowa farmer to do one illogical thing after another.
If your not familiar with the film I am sure you have heard the line "if you build it he will come." It is a baseball field and he is Shoeless Joe Jackson. To build the field Roy (Costner) most plow over his crops to make space. What leads to Roy doing this, he doesn't want to grow old like his father did. That act of spontanity leads to Roy being the butt of several jokes as his home and land face foreclosure. With mounting money problems Roy hears the voice again and this time it sends him to Boston to seek out his favorite author. With James Earl Jones in toe Roy heads to Minnesota were he is now able to travel back in time in order to meet a town doctor whose dream is to face a big league pitcher just one time. He brings him back to Iowa with Jones still tagging along and finds his brother-in-law there begging him to sell the land before the bank forecloses the next morning.
Before I go any further I should comment about how old age and cynicism have set in for me and perhaps I shouldn't be so hard on this film. There is a magic here that begs it audience to believe that we all deserve an opportunity to relive a moment in life that we thought we had lost. For Roy that moment is having a catch with his dad. I do look forward to watching this film with my son when he is older to see if it's love for baseball makes the same impression on him as it did for me when I first saw and I hope that afterwords we can go out side and have a catch. And I don't think this is a terrible movie and I admire those who still love it and find it's message endearing. However, I do not look forward to my son being old enough and cynical enough to think the film is ultimately a bit silly which is what I felt when I was watching it again.
At the center of my ambiguous feelings towards this film is it's star Kevin Costner. It's hard to believe now that there was a time when Costner was one of, if not the biggest star going. From the Untouchables to Avatar's prequel (Dance's with Wolves) to Robin Hood and even JFK it seemed like Costner's films were event films that people talked about long after seeing them. Of course over the last 15 years Costner's work has been spotty at best (I do think Tin Cup is a guilty pleasure movie) and his acting ability has become subject to ridicule.
That leads me to ask the following question, how does Field of Dreams hold up over time? In truth I don't think it holds up very well. There is still a spirit and a love for baseball that resonates throughout the film but something is lost in the pro-hippy vibe and supernatural hijinks's that prompt an Iowa farmer to do one illogical thing after another.
If your not familiar with the film I am sure you have heard the line "if you build it he will come." It is a baseball field and he is Shoeless Joe Jackson. To build the field Roy (Costner) most plow over his crops to make space. What leads to Roy doing this, he doesn't want to grow old like his father did. That act of spontanity leads to Roy being the butt of several jokes as his home and land face foreclosure. With mounting money problems Roy hears the voice again and this time it sends him to Boston to seek out his favorite author. With James Earl Jones in toe Roy heads to Minnesota were he is now able to travel back in time in order to meet a town doctor whose dream is to face a big league pitcher just one time. He brings him back to Iowa with Jones still tagging along and finds his brother-in-law there begging him to sell the land before the bank forecloses the next morning.
Before I go any further I should comment about how old age and cynicism have set in for me and perhaps I shouldn't be so hard on this film. There is a magic here that begs it audience to believe that we all deserve an opportunity to relive a moment in life that we thought we had lost. For Roy that moment is having a catch with his dad. I do look forward to watching this film with my son when he is older to see if it's love for baseball makes the same impression on him as it did for me when I first saw and I hope that afterwords we can go out side and have a catch. And I don't think this is a terrible movie and I admire those who still love it and find it's message endearing. However, I do not look forward to my son being old enough and cynical enough to think the film is ultimately a bit silly which is what I felt when I was watching it again.
Iron Man 2
I left the theater wondering to myself if perhaps this film was better than it's predecessor much I like I remember leaving Ocean's 12 feeling the same way. But unlike Ocean's 12 which required repeat viewings for me to realize the superiority of the original (in this case the original Clooney version), this one merely required thirty minutes of conversation with a good buddy to acknowledge it's inferiority.
Now let me be clear about one thing, I did enjoy the film. I was in a theater full of nearly 500 people and I can assure you that the majority of the patrons seated were laughing along with every joke the film threw at them. And I was right there with them laughing along. In fact the film even received a round of applause from the majority in attendance prompting me to wonder if someone from the cast or crew was in attendance (otherwise there is no point in applauding in a movie theater, ever!).
So I called my buddy afterwords to discuss the film and his response view of the film was considerably lower. Among his primary beefs were the fact that he had to watch Sam Jackson play the same character he has played for 15 years, the jokes were more grown worthy when watching it in theater of a dozen or so people and that future plots were sacrificed for the sake of making a safe film.
Those weren't his only faults he found but those were the major ones I can recall. In regards to Sam, I am still a sucker for his characters and I have no personal expectation for how Nick Furry should be portrayed so no harm done. Regarding the jokes, I make it a point to avoid sitcoms with laugh tracks because I find the laugh track often distracts from how not funny they are and the same could be said here that perhaps it was only funny because several hundred others were laughing too. I will be interested to see if I find it funny on DVD.
My friends third point though carries the most weight. In the wake of the Dark Knight I was curious to see how the film makers would approach this film. We have already seen pathetic studio executives pull the plug on Spiderman in favor of a darker reboot, so I wondered if this one would favor a darker approach too.
It didn't, in fact it was decidedly lighter. While the first one dealt with terrorism and gun trades this one was completely void of any overarching real-to-life subplots. Instead the film gives us a ridiculous scenario's about Tony Stark "dieing" and having daddy issues. In my opinion these are very lazy story telling techniques as there never really is a sense of either being true.
Now it's worth noting that none of this is a surprise to me. After the first Iron Man was a hit I remember reading about director Jon Favreau wanted a release date of May 2011 for the sequel and how Marvel pushed it up to May 2010 in order to get all of their ducks in a row for an eventual Avengers film. From that moment on I think I always knew that Iron Man 2 would be a play it safe sequel.
Now it should be noted that the film does carry a tremendous supporting cast with it. Everyone is great here from Downey Jr. on down with Scarlett Johanson perhaps providing the most scene stealing moments and Sam Rockwell having fun as Tony Stark's industrial rival Justin Hammer. Mickey Rourke is great as whiplash although he is sadly under used and Don Cheadle steps in seamlessly as Rhodey. You can add Paltrow, Favreau, Clark Gregg and Gary Shandling to the list of actors who provide performances that focus on their strengths and are all entertaining in their own right.
At the end of the day the question is what how do you feel about a play it safe sequel that doesn't take the same risks the original did? For some I have no doubt that there will be a sense of disappointment. But for me thinking about Iron Man 2 I feel the same way I do about Ocean's 12. It may fall considerably short of it's predecessor, but I can still enjoy watching it if for no other reason than the fact that I can tell that these people were having fun making it and I had fun watching it.
Now let me be clear about one thing, I did enjoy the film. I was in a theater full of nearly 500 people and I can assure you that the majority of the patrons seated were laughing along with every joke the film threw at them. And I was right there with them laughing along. In fact the film even received a round of applause from the majority in attendance prompting me to wonder if someone from the cast or crew was in attendance (otherwise there is no point in applauding in a movie theater, ever!).
So I called my buddy afterwords to discuss the film and his response view of the film was considerably lower. Among his primary beefs were the fact that he had to watch Sam Jackson play the same character he has played for 15 years, the jokes were more grown worthy when watching it in theater of a dozen or so people and that future plots were sacrificed for the sake of making a safe film.
Those weren't his only faults he found but those were the major ones I can recall. In regards to Sam, I am still a sucker for his characters and I have no personal expectation for how Nick Furry should be portrayed so no harm done. Regarding the jokes, I make it a point to avoid sitcoms with laugh tracks because I find the laugh track often distracts from how not funny they are and the same could be said here that perhaps it was only funny because several hundred others were laughing too. I will be interested to see if I find it funny on DVD.
My friends third point though carries the most weight. In the wake of the Dark Knight I was curious to see how the film makers would approach this film. We have already seen pathetic studio executives pull the plug on Spiderman in favor of a darker reboot, so I wondered if this one would favor a darker approach too.
It didn't, in fact it was decidedly lighter. While the first one dealt with terrorism and gun trades this one was completely void of any overarching real-to-life subplots. Instead the film gives us a ridiculous scenario's about Tony Stark "dieing" and having daddy issues. In my opinion these are very lazy story telling techniques as there never really is a sense of either being true.
Now it's worth noting that none of this is a surprise to me. After the first Iron Man was a hit I remember reading about director Jon Favreau wanted a release date of May 2011 for the sequel and how Marvel pushed it up to May 2010 in order to get all of their ducks in a row for an eventual Avengers film. From that moment on I think I always knew that Iron Man 2 would be a play it safe sequel.
Now it should be noted that the film does carry a tremendous supporting cast with it. Everyone is great here from Downey Jr. on down with Scarlett Johanson perhaps providing the most scene stealing moments and Sam Rockwell having fun as Tony Stark's industrial rival Justin Hammer. Mickey Rourke is great as whiplash although he is sadly under used and Don Cheadle steps in seamlessly as Rhodey. You can add Paltrow, Favreau, Clark Gregg and Gary Shandling to the list of actors who provide performances that focus on their strengths and are all entertaining in their own right.
At the end of the day the question is what how do you feel about a play it safe sequel that doesn't take the same risks the original did? For some I have no doubt that there will be a sense of disappointment. But for me thinking about Iron Man 2 I feel the same way I do about Ocean's 12. It may fall considerably short of it's predecessor, but I can still enjoy watching it if for no other reason than the fact that I can tell that these people were having fun making it and I had fun watching it.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Iron Man
I always feel I little bit awkward talking about my love for comic book movies when in fact I feel like I am comic book illiterate. I don't have anything against the medium mind you, I just never grew up with much interest in comic books. I do have faint memories of being at the Meijer in Okemos and hanging out in the comic book aisle but I never read anything that made an indeliable impact.
But over the past twenty years some of my favorite movies have been comic book movies. Whether it was the Batman films, X-men or Spiderman I have been a big fan. I even remember enjoying lesser known or lesser quality comic films like Daredevil, Dick Tracy, Darkman, The Phantom and The fantastic Four. Of all these however, I believe Iron Man was perhaps the most surprising when you consider how little I knew before the film began and how quickly I feel in love with the character.
In truth though it should be no surprise that I loved this film. How couldn't I when you consider it's director Jon Favreau's previous films included Zathura and Elf, it's title character was played by Robert Downey Jr. whose previos action roles included U.S. Marshalls and Air America and the remaining characters were played by actors who had seen less time in action films than Downey had.
Of course that's the genius of it really and one of the main reason's I love this films is that it serves as a reminder that films are at their best when those involved in making them are more committed to the story and character development than noise and explosions. With Iron Man the audience gets treated with respect while being treated to a every fun and entertaining film.
The film itself also provides Hollywood with a nearly perfect framework for handling an origins story of a comic book character. I say that not knowing the actual comic book origins of Iron Man but believing that this film does exactly what is needed to connect an audience to a super hero character it otherwise may know little about. Downey plays Tony Stark as if he were a rock star without ever being too pretentious. He is like Bruce Wayan from the standpoint that his super hero work is possible because his endless bank account, but he also has a charisma to him that makes him more likable than Bruce Wayan. The film is Robert Downey Jr. making us like him and to that end he does an extraordinary job.
The rest of the cast does there part as well. Gwenyth Paltrow provides great banter as Stark's assistant, Jeff Bridges bad guy turn is tremendous, and I'm still trying to figure out why Terrence Howard was replaced in the second film. As for the story, it seamlessly mixes the fun of a comic book film with real to life issues such as the manufacturing of weapons and the power wielded by terrorist organizations.
There are parts of the film that could be nit picked but I don't recommend doing that. This movie does not require you to shut your brain off and still manages to be more fun than most of the tripe that gets made and does require you to shut your brain off. I guess that's what happens so many titans of the action film makers universe converge to make a comic book film.
But over the past twenty years some of my favorite movies have been comic book movies. Whether it was the Batman films, X-men or Spiderman I have been a big fan. I even remember enjoying lesser known or lesser quality comic films like Daredevil, Dick Tracy, Darkman, The Phantom and The fantastic Four. Of all these however, I believe Iron Man was perhaps the most surprising when you consider how little I knew before the film began and how quickly I feel in love with the character.
In truth though it should be no surprise that I loved this film. How couldn't I when you consider it's director Jon Favreau's previous films included Zathura and Elf, it's title character was played by Robert Downey Jr. whose previos action roles included U.S. Marshalls and Air America and the remaining characters were played by actors who had seen less time in action films than Downey had.
Of course that's the genius of it really and one of the main reason's I love this films is that it serves as a reminder that films are at their best when those involved in making them are more committed to the story and character development than noise and explosions. With Iron Man the audience gets treated with respect while being treated to a every fun and entertaining film.
The film itself also provides Hollywood with a nearly perfect framework for handling an origins story of a comic book character. I say that not knowing the actual comic book origins of Iron Man but believing that this film does exactly what is needed to connect an audience to a super hero character it otherwise may know little about. Downey plays Tony Stark as if he were a rock star without ever being too pretentious. He is like Bruce Wayan from the standpoint that his super hero work is possible because his endless bank account, but he also has a charisma to him that makes him more likable than Bruce Wayan. The film is Robert Downey Jr. making us like him and to that end he does an extraordinary job.
The rest of the cast does there part as well. Gwenyth Paltrow provides great banter as Stark's assistant, Jeff Bridges bad guy turn is tremendous, and I'm still trying to figure out why Terrence Howard was replaced in the second film. As for the story, it seamlessly mixes the fun of a comic book film with real to life issues such as the manufacturing of weapons and the power wielded by terrorist organizations.
There are parts of the film that could be nit picked but I don't recommend doing that. This movie does not require you to shut your brain off and still manages to be more fun than most of the tripe that gets made and does require you to shut your brain off. I guess that's what happens so many titans of the action film makers universe converge to make a comic book film.
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
There are films that are said to define a generation and there are films that play as though they would like to define a generation but probably shouldn't. The question I have today is which one is Ferris Bueller's Day Off?
Hopefully I don't have to explain too much about this film. If you haven't seen it then you are likely under the age of 15 and your opinion doesn't matter anyway (take that Justin Bieber!). In fact, the makers of the film have worked so hard to make sure that the film remains recognizable that they have taken steps to ensure that Matthew Broderick will forever look exactly like the films title character.
I should confess that prior to re watching this film my prevailing thought was that this movie has become increasingly over rated as time goes by. What once was just another John Hughes film teen comedy has seemingly come to provide people with a hope for what adolescence should be. Watching it again I must say that I hope not.
Before you boo and hiss at me let me say a few things. First of all, Ferris Bueller is charming, impulsive and likable. He just isn't believable. Secondly, the film is filled with quotable lines. The problem for me is that quotable lines and a charming lead character do not make a great film.
What bothers me with this film is the lazy way in which John Hughes approaches all of the characters not named Ferris Bueller. The adults are all idiots, his sister is spiteful and cold and Ferris's peers are gullible and dead eyed. Bueller's two cohorts, his best friend Cameron and his girlfriend the hot chick, are simply there to tag along with Bueller and act impressed every time one of his schemes works out. Even when the film tries to have a meaningful moment with Cameron's character it cuts that short so we can watch Bueller 'comically' race home before his parents can discover that he was faking being sick.
None of the real issues this film paws get resolved in any sort of meaningful way. Bueller's relationship with his girlfriend achieves a level of meaningless following around as Bueller laments graduating and leaving her behind in one of his many moments spent talking directly to the camera. As for his 'best friend,' he seems to have genuine problems that could use a sympathetic ear but instead Bueller's friendship is there merely to provide Cameron with a distraction to his problems while Bueller himself feeds his own ego.
All of that being said, there is nothing wrong with liking this film because in truth all it wants to do is be likable. It's a great film for shutting your brain off or finding on USA at 2 pm on a Saturday. But it should not be consider as a defining film for a generation as it ultimately is just superficial pop entertainment. Unless of course you feel that is an apt description for a generation.
Hopefully I don't have to explain too much about this film. If you haven't seen it then you are likely under the age of 15 and your opinion doesn't matter anyway (take that Justin Bieber!). In fact, the makers of the film have worked so hard to make sure that the film remains recognizable that they have taken steps to ensure that Matthew Broderick will forever look exactly like the films title character.
I should confess that prior to re watching this film my prevailing thought was that this movie has become increasingly over rated as time goes by. What once was just another John Hughes film teen comedy has seemingly come to provide people with a hope for what adolescence should be. Watching it again I must say that I hope not.
Before you boo and hiss at me let me say a few things. First of all, Ferris Bueller is charming, impulsive and likable. He just isn't believable. Secondly, the film is filled with quotable lines. The problem for me is that quotable lines and a charming lead character do not make a great film.
What bothers me with this film is the lazy way in which John Hughes approaches all of the characters not named Ferris Bueller. The adults are all idiots, his sister is spiteful and cold and Ferris's peers are gullible and dead eyed. Bueller's two cohorts, his best friend Cameron and his girlfriend the hot chick, are simply there to tag along with Bueller and act impressed every time one of his schemes works out. Even when the film tries to have a meaningful moment with Cameron's character it cuts that short so we can watch Bueller 'comically' race home before his parents can discover that he was faking being sick.
None of the real issues this film paws get resolved in any sort of meaningful way. Bueller's relationship with his girlfriend achieves a level of meaningless following around as Bueller laments graduating and leaving her behind in one of his many moments spent talking directly to the camera. As for his 'best friend,' he seems to have genuine problems that could use a sympathetic ear but instead Bueller's friendship is there merely to provide Cameron with a distraction to his problems while Bueller himself feeds his own ego.
All of that being said, there is nothing wrong with liking this film because in truth all it wants to do is be likable. It's a great film for shutting your brain off or finding on USA at 2 pm on a Saturday. But it should not be consider as a defining film for a generation as it ultimately is just superficial pop entertainment. Unless of course you feel that is an apt description for a generation.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Fargo
Being stubborn means lots of things. One is that I will never stop being a Lions fan regardless of what happens. Another is that if a film wins the Academy Award for best picture by beating out a film that I feel is so good that there is no conceivable way that the winning film could have been better than I will refuse to watch the winning film. To this day I have never seen The English Patient and I never plan to.
Fargo is the kind of film you watch and you walk away from thinking "WOW." It takes us in to the life of Jerry Lundegaard, a well intentioned but fatally desperate man whose financial struggles have lead him to concoct a scheme that involves having his wife kidnapped and getting his wealthy father in-law to pay the ransom. What could possibly go wrong with that?
In lesser hands this might just be an average film, but in the hands of the Coen brothers the films manages to routinely move in back and forth between genres as it is equal parts Shakespearean tragedy, brutal crime drama, and small town America oddity. The characters are all blessed with their own unique voice with Frances McDormand stealing the show as the pregnant police officer Marge Gunderson.
We start with Jerry arriving in Fargo North Dakota to deliver a new car to the 2 men he has hired to kidnap his wife. The 2 men make for a Jekyll and Hyde team as one is the ultra-violent quite type while the other is a loud mouth looking to avoid violence whenever possible. Steve Buscemi plays the talkative one who is painfully unaware of how ineffective his verbal skills are. Buscemi is brilliant here and this role has also provided me personally with one of my favorite lines when several Minnesota locals refer to Buscemi as being funny looking without being able to provide any other descriptors.
After Jerry sets the deal up in Fargo he returns home to his job as a failing car salesman working for his father in-law who clearly does not respect him. He is scene trying to get funding for a land deal while holding off auditors at the dealership who are inquiring about loan money and missing cars. Throughout all of this Jerry tries to move forward by ignoring his problems and putting on a happy face. He has a dogged determination about himself that says life should be easy and I'm going to work as hard as I can to make my life easy. Tragically, he seems to be too prideful to admit his mistakes.
Following the kidnapping we see our criminals being pulled over for a minor traffic violation. Buscemi's mouth digs the men into a deeper hole and then without warning the film turns violent as the arresting cop and two witnesses are murdered by Buscemi's partner leaving even Buscemi shocked and horrified.
This brings McDormand's character into the film as the police chief investigating the murders. It is within this character that the film creates it's delicate balancing act between small town kookiness and crime drama. At no point is the film making fun of McDormand as the pregnant investigator and yet there is almost an innocent sense of joy in watching her preform her work. Keep in mind we are dealing with events that would leave any normal individual emotionally scarred and yet she performs her duties professionally and admirably. In a lesser film there most certainly would have been some jokes set up at the expense of the small town chief but here she is celebrated. I might also add that in making her pregnant the Coen's create a character who is a constant source for optimism and provides a unique commentary on how no matter what the circumstances are that you face there is always hope in new life.
The film's journey is one filled with misstep after misstep. Jerry's plan unravels as his father in-law seeks control of the situation. There is more blood and more death as Chief Gunderson gets closer to the truth and eventually catches the surviving criminal. In the patrol car Chief Gunderson appears dumbfounded as she laments on why so many people had to die over "a little bit of money." This questions feels appropriately directed at the criminal in the back seat, but I believe the Coens are asking the question to Jerry. In life we all make mistakes, in Jerry's case he refused to deal with them and because of that he brought tragedy to his family and strangers. All because of a little bit of money.
Fargo is the kind of film you watch and you walk away from thinking "WOW." It takes us in to the life of Jerry Lundegaard, a well intentioned but fatally desperate man whose financial struggles have lead him to concoct a scheme that involves having his wife kidnapped and getting his wealthy father in-law to pay the ransom. What could possibly go wrong with that?
In lesser hands this might just be an average film, but in the hands of the Coen brothers the films manages to routinely move in back and forth between genres as it is equal parts Shakespearean tragedy, brutal crime drama, and small town America oddity. The characters are all blessed with their own unique voice with Frances McDormand stealing the show as the pregnant police officer Marge Gunderson.
We start with Jerry arriving in Fargo North Dakota to deliver a new car to the 2 men he has hired to kidnap his wife. The 2 men make for a Jekyll and Hyde team as one is the ultra-violent quite type while the other is a loud mouth looking to avoid violence whenever possible. Steve Buscemi plays the talkative one who is painfully unaware of how ineffective his verbal skills are. Buscemi is brilliant here and this role has also provided me personally with one of my favorite lines when several Minnesota locals refer to Buscemi as being funny looking without being able to provide any other descriptors.
After Jerry sets the deal up in Fargo he returns home to his job as a failing car salesman working for his father in-law who clearly does not respect him. He is scene trying to get funding for a land deal while holding off auditors at the dealership who are inquiring about loan money and missing cars. Throughout all of this Jerry tries to move forward by ignoring his problems and putting on a happy face. He has a dogged determination about himself that says life should be easy and I'm going to work as hard as I can to make my life easy. Tragically, he seems to be too prideful to admit his mistakes.
Following the kidnapping we see our criminals being pulled over for a minor traffic violation. Buscemi's mouth digs the men into a deeper hole and then without warning the film turns violent as the arresting cop and two witnesses are murdered by Buscemi's partner leaving even Buscemi shocked and horrified.
This brings McDormand's character into the film as the police chief investigating the murders. It is within this character that the film creates it's delicate balancing act between small town kookiness and crime drama. At no point is the film making fun of McDormand as the pregnant investigator and yet there is almost an innocent sense of joy in watching her preform her work. Keep in mind we are dealing with events that would leave any normal individual emotionally scarred and yet she performs her duties professionally and admirably. In a lesser film there most certainly would have been some jokes set up at the expense of the small town chief but here she is celebrated. I might also add that in making her pregnant the Coen's create a character who is a constant source for optimism and provides a unique commentary on how no matter what the circumstances are that you face there is always hope in new life.
The film's journey is one filled with misstep after misstep. Jerry's plan unravels as his father in-law seeks control of the situation. There is more blood and more death as Chief Gunderson gets closer to the truth and eventually catches the surviving criminal. In the patrol car Chief Gunderson appears dumbfounded as she laments on why so many people had to die over "a little bit of money." This questions feels appropriately directed at the criminal in the back seat, but I believe the Coens are asking the question to Jerry. In life we all make mistakes, in Jerry's case he refused to deal with them and because of that he brought tragedy to his family and strangers. All because of a little bit of money.
Aliens
I took some time off from this to finish up what was a busy semester at school. Now I'm back and I'm already breaking rules on this thing. First of all, I am considering offering my wife the chance to pick any remaining film we have left each time we get a chance to watch a film together. That way we can watch things of interest together without trying to plan a night around a particular film. Also, I have decided that instead of having to wait to watch movies I buy that I have passed alphabetically I can just watch the new movie when I get a chance. These are the thoughts that keep me up at night.
This brings me to Aliens, I film I had previously only watched on VHS and now have on DVD for the first time. Believe it or not my wife was not interested in watching this one with me. And when I was done watching it I was actually a little sad about that.
Now keep in mind that my wife does not like scary movies and the few times that we have tried to watch a scary movie together the night ended quickly. I bring all of this up not to make fun of her because in truth I admire her sensibility when it comes to things like not wanting to watch something designed to provoke a negative emotion. Instead, the reason that I wanted to be watching this film with her is because I believe it is so much more than a scary movie.
It is a sequel of course to the Ridley Scott film Alien in which Scott placed a group of blue collar workers out in the middle of space and created a film that was 50% Hitchcock style thriller and 50% sci-fi terror. It's been over thirty years since that films was released and it remains as one of the best films ever made in it's genre.
And James Cameron's Aliens complete blows the original out of the water. Comparing the two is almost unfair, but doing so shows exactly why it is one of the greatest sequels of all time and one of the few that you can definitively state that it improved on the original.
The film itself picks up with the discovery of the first films lone survivor floating through space. A few decades have passed and Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) has survived in a cryogenic state. She is picked up and returned to the company she had worked for to face interrogation for the events of the first film. As she tells her story she also finds a company man by the of Burke (Paul Reiser) trying to help her out. Burke manages to get Ripley's flight status re-instated if she is willing to return to the site she abandoned in the first film with a team of marines to check on a colony the company had a established there and recently lost contact with.
After some arm twisting Ripley agrees to go along as a consultant for the marines who are colorful and confident in there ability to take on anything that comes there way. They arrive on the colony and eventually they get their chance to show their mettle.
I think at some point I may start writing poetry about my feelings for James Cameron, but for this entry let me just say that for a man making his 3rd feature length film to choose a project like this is an incredible risk that paid off bigger than anyone could have ever imagined. By the mid 1980's Alien had already cemented it's place in film lore and the fact of the matter is that sequels typically only exist to show how great the original was.
Aliens trumps that notion in every way imaginable and Cameron finds a voice in film making that he has continued to use successfully ever since. To film itself takes it's time introducing the characters and letting them breathe awhile before the chaos starts. Even the one dimensional marine characters are given a life that one would not expect in a lesser film and we find ourselves enjoying getting to these characters. We also pick up a survivor from the colony who is a young girl that has seen the same things Ripley has seen.
Cameron takes his time with the story because he trusts his own abilities to create a pay off that is worth the price of admission (and perhaps more than that). It's a full hour into the film before we see the Aliens but once we do the film grabs you and never lets go. The tension and excitement is virtually incomparable in films and Cameron shows has his trademark sense of scale in creating an Alien who is larger than the rest while providing Ripley with a means for doing combat with that Alien.
When I finished watching it I went on Wikipedia and looked up Aliens. It turns out I am not alone in my love of this film. I knew that Sigourney Weaver had earned an Oscar nomination for her role which is incredibly rare for the genre. The film one countless awards outside of the Academy Awards and it's praise amongst critics has been universal ever sense. Even Weaver is quoted as saying that she believed this film makes the original look like a "cucumber sandwich."
There is a part of me that just loves talking about films and I suppose that's why I which I could watch this with my wife and talk to her about it. This is a one of a kind film experience that is not for the faint of heart, but does not require a bloodthirsty nature to enjoy. It creates a sense of constant lurking terror in a way that is almost unimaginable and yet when the film ends I wanted to start it over and watch again. I doubt I will ever watch this film with my wife and that's okay. She is already great enough, there is no need for her to be perfect ;-)
This brings me to Aliens, I film I had previously only watched on VHS and now have on DVD for the first time. Believe it or not my wife was not interested in watching this one with me. And when I was done watching it I was actually a little sad about that.
Now keep in mind that my wife does not like scary movies and the few times that we have tried to watch a scary movie together the night ended quickly. I bring all of this up not to make fun of her because in truth I admire her sensibility when it comes to things like not wanting to watch something designed to provoke a negative emotion. Instead, the reason that I wanted to be watching this film with her is because I believe it is so much more than a scary movie.
It is a sequel of course to the Ridley Scott film Alien in which Scott placed a group of blue collar workers out in the middle of space and created a film that was 50% Hitchcock style thriller and 50% sci-fi terror. It's been over thirty years since that films was released and it remains as one of the best films ever made in it's genre.
And James Cameron's Aliens complete blows the original out of the water. Comparing the two is almost unfair, but doing so shows exactly why it is one of the greatest sequels of all time and one of the few that you can definitively state that it improved on the original.
The film itself picks up with the discovery of the first films lone survivor floating through space. A few decades have passed and Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) has survived in a cryogenic state. She is picked up and returned to the company she had worked for to face interrogation for the events of the first film. As she tells her story she also finds a company man by the of Burke (Paul Reiser) trying to help her out. Burke manages to get Ripley's flight status re-instated if she is willing to return to the site she abandoned in the first film with a team of marines to check on a colony the company had a established there and recently lost contact with.
After some arm twisting Ripley agrees to go along as a consultant for the marines who are colorful and confident in there ability to take on anything that comes there way. They arrive on the colony and eventually they get their chance to show their mettle.
I think at some point I may start writing poetry about my feelings for James Cameron, but for this entry let me just say that for a man making his 3rd feature length film to choose a project like this is an incredible risk that paid off bigger than anyone could have ever imagined. By the mid 1980's Alien had already cemented it's place in film lore and the fact of the matter is that sequels typically only exist to show how great the original was.
Aliens trumps that notion in every way imaginable and Cameron finds a voice in film making that he has continued to use successfully ever since. To film itself takes it's time introducing the characters and letting them breathe awhile before the chaos starts. Even the one dimensional marine characters are given a life that one would not expect in a lesser film and we find ourselves enjoying getting to these characters. We also pick up a survivor from the colony who is a young girl that has seen the same things Ripley has seen.
Cameron takes his time with the story because he trusts his own abilities to create a pay off that is worth the price of admission (and perhaps more than that). It's a full hour into the film before we see the Aliens but once we do the film grabs you and never lets go. The tension and excitement is virtually incomparable in films and Cameron shows has his trademark sense of scale in creating an Alien who is larger than the rest while providing Ripley with a means for doing combat with that Alien.
When I finished watching it I went on Wikipedia and looked up Aliens. It turns out I am not alone in my love of this film. I knew that Sigourney Weaver had earned an Oscar nomination for her role which is incredibly rare for the genre. The film one countless awards outside of the Academy Awards and it's praise amongst critics has been universal ever sense. Even Weaver is quoted as saying that she believed this film makes the original look like a "cucumber sandwich."
There is a part of me that just loves talking about films and I suppose that's why I which I could watch this with my wife and talk to her about it. This is a one of a kind film experience that is not for the faint of heart, but does not require a bloodthirsty nature to enjoy. It creates a sense of constant lurking terror in a way that is almost unimaginable and yet when the film ends I wanted to start it over and watch again. I doubt I will ever watch this film with my wife and that's okay. She is already great enough, there is no need for her to be perfect ;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
