PaleyFilms

Russel Crowe, Kevin Spacey, Guy Pearce. How much more can you ask for from a movie? These three extremely talented actors each plays a cop in L.A. Confidential, a crime film set in the 1950s. Like Roman Polanski’s Chinatown, the film is shot like in a noir-ish style, complete with the cops, detectives, and dames. It follows the intertwining stories of three very different police officers in a crime ridden and corrupted Los Angeles. Crowe plays Bud White, a cop who likes to use violence to bring down criminals. Spacey is Sergeant Jack Vincennes, who purposely sets up celebrity arrests in order to be paid off by the local gossip publication, Hush-Hush magazine. The only seemingly uncorrupted officer is Ed Exley, played here by Guy Pearce. Exley is extremely ambitious, and will follow protocol to achieve a higher rank and personal satisfaction.

Brian Helgeland’s screenplay gives this film a pulpy feel. Adapted from a novel of the movie’s namesake, the script is fresh and gritty: a fully character driven story, with many noir elements and plot twists. The dialogue is tremendously entertaining, and at many times, hilarious. Director Curtis Hanson works with his screenwriter to flesh out the Los Angeles portrayed here, as well as its unique people. The two filmmakers meld together very well, and make something smart, funny, and special.

Another thing that is so great about this movie is that it features three fantastic actors at the top of their respective games. Each gives an Oscar worthy performance (surprisingly, none of them were even nominated). Russel Crowe gives the best performance of the bunch, (just two years before the start of his three-year-in-a-row acting nomination streak), with Kevin Spacey and Guy Pearce not far behind. The supporting cast is also very strong here, with the likes of Kim Basinger, James Cromwell (you’ll never watch Babe the same way again), Danny DeVito, and David Strathairn gracing the screen.

An example of very fine filmmaking, just about everything in this movie works. It is well made and has one of the best scripts of the late 1990′s. of For anyone looking to have a really good time with a movie, L.A. Confidential would be a great place to start. This is a very solid romp, with a good mixture of seriousness, humor, and character motivation. If anyone says otherwise, tell them to hush-hush.

Brian DePalma’s 1987 Chicago crime film, The Untouchables, appears at first sight to be an interesting project. After all, it is loosely based on real-life events, sports a script by the great David Mamet, and contains an all-star cast. Kevin Costner plays Elliot Ness, a federal agent put in charge of taking down Al Capone (Robert DeNiro) and his citywide crime ring. Sean Connery (in a performance he won an Oscar for) is Jimmy Malone, a cop whom Ness befriends. The pair recruits a team of elite forces to assist them in bringing Capone to justice. Sounds pretty good, huh? Well, sadly the movie ends up failing on multiple levels.

Let’s start with the unmemorable acting. I don’t believe that anyone here gives a bad performance, but I don’t think there are any good performances either. Costner pretty much phones in his lines, bringing absolutely nothing to his character that couldn’t have been accomplished by anyone else. DeNiro, who I was excited to see playing a real-life villain, probably gives the film’s best performance. Unfortunately, that isn’t really saying much, as his acting is very one-note; this is definitely not one of his stronger roles. For the life of me, I have no idea how Connery won an Oscar for his performance here. He is a very good actor, but doesn’t really have any depth in this film.

Fault, however, cannot be heaped too much on the acting, as David Mamet’s screenplay doesn’t give the actors a chance to fully flesh out their characters. For heaven’s sake, this guy wrote the screenplays for The Verdict and (later) Glengarry Glen Ross! Such knowledge only makes it harder to accept the fact that this script is pretty inept. In addition to severely underwritten characters, the dialogue’s tone is far too lighthearted and silly for the subject matter it deals with. That’s not to say the screenplay is complete garbage. Here and there we get some very clever touches, making the rest of the movie’s downfall even more painful than it should be. I wish I could call this bad writing; instead it ends up being “frustrating writing.”

A similar statement can be said about Brian DePalma’s direction. Every once and a while we are presented with some very clever shots and sequences. It is clear that DePalma has the chops to direct this movie; he just doesn’t succeed. Instead of the film having any heart, it is shot in a cold and empty style. Visually the movie is fun to look at, but doesn’t give us any reason to invest in any of its situations or characters. The art design and cinematography are perfect, but the film is far from that. In fact, some of the design looks too perfect. For example, there are really colorful costumes that look too slick and polished to feel real. Even Ennio Morricone’s score doesn’t work, going so far as to negatively affect the movie. It sounds overbearing and cliche, and feels too much like it is trying to be moving and epic. Scores should be felt, not heard, and this one is like a badly tuned tuba. In one scene, DePalma attempts to pay homage to Sergei Eisenstein’s 1925 masterpiece, The Battleship Potemkin. Such ambition is not earned here, and feels more ironic than it does clever, almost to the point of blasphemy.

The Untouchables disappoints in so many different ways. In addition to wasting a perfectly talented cast of actors, the dialogue is very underwhelming and unnatural for such a movie. DePalma certainly doesn’t service any humanity that should be left in any of the characters, as his direction is purely aesthetic and devoid of deep emotion. Even with its few good lines of screenplay and a bit of clever directing, the film is caught somewhere between frustrating and bad.

Ben Affleck has become the member of a new club. Along with other actors-turned-directors, such as Charlie Chaplin, Clint Eastwood, and George Clooney, Affleck has directed himself in a starring role. He plays bank robber Doug MacRay, a tough hood from the streets of Boston. After robbing a bank, he falls in love with Claire (Rebecca Hall), the bank’s manager, who was kidnapped and released during the robbery. This is all unbeknown to Claire, as Doug wore a mask during the hold up. As the FBI begins to close in on him and his cronies, Doug’s relationship with Clair starts to waver. Just one final job stands between Doug MacRay and liberty from the high-crime city of Boston. The only question is, will he survive it?

The Town‘s greatest asset is its acting. Ben Affleck rightfully cast himself in his own production, as he gives a great, heartfelt performance. Jeremy Renner, who impressed me quite a bit in 2009′s The Hurt Locker gives a very good supporting turn here. He plays Doug’s pal and right hand man, James Couglin, a very tough and violence-prone character, who nevertheless stays humanistic enough for the audience to invest in him. The rest of the supporting cast gives standard though adequate performances, so I have no complaints.

As a crime film, I was very pleased with this film’s action and heist sequences. The opening scene of the movie depicts a bank robbery, that comes close in quality to that of The Dark Knight‘s. One can see that the director was born to shoot crime movies, similar in vein to Michael Mann. With shootouts and high stakes chases through the streets of Boston, Affleck proves that he is not just a capable actor, but a proficient director, as well.

The film’s screenplay is a solid enough effort, but doesn’t really add anything new or original to the genre. At times, the movie meanders too much, causing an inconsistent flow in its pacing. If more time had been invested in the crime elements of the story, The Town would have been an epic, instead of an imbalance of drama and action. Under-ambition may be the filmmakers’ key flaw, as they could have produced something truly spectacular and phenomenal.

As a very solid crime/drama entry, this one hits the mark. While it never reaches its full potential, the film is extremely entertaining and very well acted. Additionally, the direction is top-notch, as can be seen by the heist and chase scenes. For what is only his second directorial effort, Ben Affleck has made something he can be proud of.

True Romance features one of the most talented cast of actors in any movie, period. Our lead characters are played by Christian Slater and Patricia Arquette. Supporting people include Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken, Val Kilmer, Chris Penn, Gary Oldman, Brad Pitt, and James Gandolfini. Heck, even Samuel L. Jackson has a brief cameo appearance. Add to this the fact that the film’s script is penned by Quentin Tarantino, and one should rightfully expect a recipe for success. So the big question is: is this film as amazing as it should be, or is it less than the sum of its parts?

Clarence Worley (Slater) is an employee at a comic book shop. After meeting and falling in love with Alabama Whitman (Arquette), a prostitute, Clarence decides to kill her pimp, Drexel (Oldman), and ends up accidentally stealing a suitcase full of cocaine, in the process. The couple sets off on a journey to try and sell the coke, while evading both the police, and gang members who want their precious drugs back.

The first three-fourths of this film are near-brilliant, and from the start, feels very inspired. It pays direct homage to Badlands, by using similar music and narration, as well as making use of some of the same themes used in Malick’s 1973 film. Tarantino’s script, while not as clever as those used in his own films, contains many unforgettable scenes, situations, and dialogue. One hilarious yet disturbing scene, features an interrogation of Clarence’s father (Hopper), by a gangster (Walken). When you get a discussion between Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken, scripted by Quentin Tarantino, you know you’re in for a treat. This is surely one of the funniest and most intelligent screenplays of 1993.

With such a group of talent on display, this is clearly an actor’s movie. Not a single actor or actress gives a mediocre performance, let alone a poor one. In fact, much of the acting is impeccable. Most notable is the performance of Christian Slater, who plays a “geek, turned tough guy,” marvelously.

Where the film falters, however, lies in Tony Scott’s direction. One can not help but wonder how the movie would have turned out if Tarantino had directed instead. For the most part, the direction is too flat to fully sustain the dialogue. Nevertheless, up until the final half-hour of the film, this is only a minor problem. The final act is where this movie really derails, turning a violent sequence (I won’t spoil what it is) into an uninspired, generic, action piece. Scott is not a terrible director, but lacks the aptitude required to take on such a talented cast and screenplay. Because of this, the result of the film’s efforts, ends up being less than the sum of its parts.

If you are looking for a very enjoyable and clever romp, you should definitely check this movie out. Even though Tony Scott should probably not have been the director, there are enough redeeming moments to make this a good film. True Romance should be a masterpiece, but ends up instead as an above average crime story.

The opening scene of Francois Truffaut’s Day for Night is something we have seen many times; it is a crowd scene. Watch further, however, and one realizes that it is really a crowd scene being shot for a film called Meet Pamela. Truffaut himself (who gives a wonderful performance) is the director of this movie within a movie. He stars alongside a great team of actors and actresses, including Jean-Pierre Aumont, Valentina Cortese, Jean-Pierre Leaud, and Jacqueline Bisset, who all play members of the movie-making process.

Truffaut’s direction is masterful, as he successfully shows his audience the workings of filmmakers, as well as “movie within a movie” scenes. Many directors would struggle with these scenes, but here they are pulled off with what seems to be ease from the director. Much of this can probably be credited to Truffaut’s experience and expertise. The best kind of movie about cinema, seems to be that of one who is very familiar with movie-making as a process.

Instead of primarily showing the technical aspects of making a film, Truffaut displays behind the scenes aspects that go into the movie’s production. Not everything goes smoothly in the studio. A main actor dies in a car crash and must be replaced, scenes must be re-shot, cast and crew members go through romantic problems and adultery, an actress has an emotional breakdown, and executives experience worry and nightmares. There is even a scene where the crew becomes overly frustrated as a stubborn cat refuses to drink milk for an important camera shot.

As rough as much of this seems, Truffaut is intent on making each character likable, no matter what flaws he or she has. These characters serve the purpose of showing Truffaut’s love for film. One scene shows a pile of books being taken out of a bag, each one about a different movie director. A dream sequence shows a young boy collecting photos from Citizen Kane from off of a wall. Such scenes here are typical, and show the beauty and magic of film. This is a wonderful movie about movies.

Day for Night is Truffaut’s love letter to cinema, and reminds us why we go to the movies. It features a unique perspective into things that go on behind the scenes with a studio and crew, and pulls through as a good movie, itself. While more of a fun romp than some of Truffaut’s other projects, this film is exactly what it sets out to be; a very well crafted, extremely entertaining piece of celluloid.

Let’s face it. Because film is such a visual medium, we all want to see beautiful images in our movies, whether be it groundbreaking special effects, flashy cinematography, or radical camera techniques. Terrence Malick’s sophomore film, Days of Heaven breaks all boundaries as far as cinematography is concerned. In fact, if you pause the movie at just about any scene, you will marvel at the still image presented on the screen.

The year is 1916, and Bill (Richard Gere), a steel worker has just fled town after accidentally killing his boss. Bill brings along his little sister, as well as his girlfriend, Abby (Brooke Adams). Bill and Abby pretend to be siblings in order to keep away rumors that might indict Bill for his manslaughter. The group each lands a job working in a harvesting field, and everything goes fine, until a rancher (Sam Shepard) falls in love with Abby.

What could have been a dramatic melodrama, is instead turned into a quiet, reflective view on humanity, similar to Malick’s previous film, Badlands. Dialogue and storyline plays second fiddle to the film’s images. To some extent, this works fairly well; however, the movie unfortunately contains some serious flaws that make it just barely recommendable.

Narration can be a beautiful thing or ugly thing. Some films such as Goodfellas, or American Beauty make good use of it, by offering insight into characters’ psyches, personalities, and motivations. While Days of Heaven also achieves this to some extent, it contains a serious problem; the narrator herself. This film is narrated by Bill’s little sister (Linda Manz), who doesn’t have the vocal gravitas to give a voice-over; what could have been soothing or immersing, ends up just sounding annoying. While Manz’s performance is pretty good, I cringed every time her narration started up.

Reflective films are often slowly paced, which I almost never have a problem with. Let me stress “almost,” because here the pacing actually hurts the film, making its dramatic moments often anticlimactic and meandering. While there are some pretty riveting scenes near the end of the film, it seems that Malick is so content to just show us beautiful images, that he forgets to invest enough into his characters or plot. While Badlands managed to be both equal measures of beautiful and interesting, this film is extremely beautiful, but only slightly interesting.

All criticisms said, however, I will recommend this film, and even call it a “must see.” If this were a series of still photographs, they would be up on my wall in a second. Anyone who sees film as a visual exercise will love the images it presents; in fact, the images are strong enough to partially counter all of its other flaws, but only because they are beastly. While the film would have been better suited with either a better narrative, or lack of narrative at all, the story is decent enough to pull a viewer through. It isn’t painfully boring, and does contain enough substance to be called a “good film.” Oh yeah, and I never mentioned that it also has a great score from the great Ennio Morricone.

Days of Heaven is severely flawed. While a masterpiece in cinematography, the plot is wafer thin, as are the characters and dialogue. This is a film that I think may split viewers, as some will find it excruciatingly boring, while others will find it beautiful. I’m falling somewhere in between and say that it contains both good and bad. Thankfully, the beauty just manages to outweigh the evil, making this film definitely worth a check-out.

If you are looking for a director with a lot of range, Gus Van Sant has to be your man. After all, he dabbles in the mainstream (e.g. Milk), as well as experimental projects (e.g. Paranoid Park). Elephant is the second film in Van Sant’s “Death” trilogy of art-house films. Even though it stars mostly non-professional actors and actresses, the film was met with critical acclaim, and even won the prestigious “Palm d’Or” at the Cannes Film Festival. At only 81 minutes long, on a low budget of $3 million, and featuring a no-name cast, the movie is essentially a retelling of the Columbine shootings. For the umpteenth time, a great director has proven wrong the likes of Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich, by showing that it doesn’t take money or celebrities to make a fantastic film.

Most of the film simply shows an average day in high school, albeit in clever ways, such as showing scenes over and over again from different characters’ perspectives. True to the art-house form, this doesn’t show a movie high school day, but rather a realistic high school day. Students roam the halls in between breaks talking and acting just as teenagers do, free of cliches. While none of the actors’ performances stick out very much, I’m pretty sure that was the point Van Sant was trying to show. There is nothing special about any of these students; they are just like you and me. When two students eventually begin an inevitable massacre near the end of the film, the killings seem all the more tragic. None of the victims deserve what comes to them, nor do they have any inkling what will transpire, until it is too late. This movie says a lot about the randomness of life and the horror of murder. Because nobody knows anything of the terrorists’ plot, viewers may find parts of the film painful to watch.

I do have one major issue with this film, and that is its final act. We see the two murderous students plot out their rampage, down to their purchasing of guns. The film would have been a lot more powerful if such details were not shown to the audience. In a movie about randomness and not-knowing, less would have been better. Additionally, the shooting itself changes the tone of the film from realistic to surrealistic. While the surrealism does pull the viewer deeper into the story’s madness, realism would have been a more effective way of showing the horror of the situation. There is a huge buildup, showing us how the to-be victims are just ordinary people, only to have them killed in a non-ordinary way. That is not to say Van Sant should have made the violence more graphic; rather, the shooting should have been completely non-stylized. For the most part the film succeeds in this department; it just has its missteps. Nevertheless, the above faults only make this a really great film, instead of a masterpiece.

I will not pretend that this film is everybody’s cup of tea, but do still strongly recommend it. As much of the movie leading up to its conclusion consists of people just walking around or having everyday discussions, do not watch it expecting anything light or fun. Elephant is more of a work of art than it is entertainment. In addition to being impeccably directed, the film carries a strong sense of realism that will either unnerve you or fascinate you. Take your pick.