Film #20 in the Filmspotting World War II Marathon, and man, that Masa is one hot tamale!

Screenplay By: Bohumil Hrabal & Jirí Menzel
Directed By: Jirí Menzel

I’m not a huge fan of Wes Anderson, but I happen to like most of his movies and enjoy his style of film making. Ostre Sledované Vlaky feels like a Wes Anderson film in a lot of ways, mainly in its dead pan quirkiness and use of the greater world as a mere backdrop to the lives of its characters. However, the similarities don’t run too deep, as Jirí Menzel has crafted a film that is off beat and quirky, but more grounded in reality and in the end brings its real world backdrop to the forefront to have an impact on the characters. It is only with the sudden import of the war at the end of Ostre Sledované Vlaky that the film transcends above just quirky and into great movie territory.

The characters in Ostre Sledované Vlaky are flighty, they are self absorbed, but these are character traits that make sense when viewed against the backdrop of their time. It shouldn’t surprise the viewer that people in the background of World War II would take a rather off hands approach to the war. The death and destruction of the war doesn’t touch them directly, at least not in their eyes, and their actions reflect this in their lark like quality. Ostre Sledované Vlaky isn’t a movie about malice, or even about the war or its breadth, it’s a quirky comedy, almost dark even, about a boy coming of age in an odd setting surrounded by a group of odd individuals.

To go back to the ending, it is what ties the movie together. Ostre Sledované Vlaky doesn’t shy away from WWII, but it does treat it with a telescope like quality, it’s out there but it’s pretty darn far away. The end changes that, and in the moment that Milos falls off the tower reality comes crashing back in. The characters appear to be in their own little world still, but as Masa tentatively walks towards the exploded train it’s as if the winds of change are blowing in their direction. Thanks to the actions of Milos the war is now right in front of them, a telescope is no longer needed and the quirky nature has been shed in favor of one of repercussions. It’s fitting that the end happens before we see any repercussions, because those are for another movie, not this one.

There is more to Ostre Sledované Vlaky than what I have written, but those are the points I most wished to touch upon. It is a well crafted film, with technical and writing prowess clearly on display. The cast fall into their roles, not only acting them out well but looking the parts as well. Ostre Sledované Vlaky is funny and yet poignant at the same time. It’s also a vastly overlooked film, so if you haven’t already done so, make the time for Ostre Sledované Vlaky, you’ll thank me later.

Rating:

****

Cheers,
Bill

The Arthurian legend comes to life in movie #18 in the Filmspotting Disney Animated Marathon!

Story By: Bill Peet
Directed By: Wolfgang Reitherman

At this point in the Disney animated marathon it’s odd to see a name in the director’s slot that isn’t Hamilton Luske, Clyde Geronimi or Wilfred Jackson. Those three made their indelible mark on the world of Disney animation and the world at large with their work. The Sword In The Stone is the first title in a long time from Disney to not have one of those three in the director’s chair. This is also the second time for Wolfgang Reitherman in that same chair, but this is the first time he is on his own. This becomes very evident from the moment we fade into the world of Merlin, Wart and Archimedes.

The style employed by Disney previous to The Sword In The Stone was one of whimsy, and technically speaking the animation consisted of fine lines and a certain air of refinement. With the switch to Reitherman it is clear that a change is in the air and it plays out on screen. The story is more strong than whimsical, and the animation has a more unfinished feel to it. Now, before anyone jumps down my throat, I’m not saying the animation looks rushed, it’s simply a different style. When I say unfinished I am speaking to the way it looks as if the pencil trailed off of Wart’s hair, leaving the impression of blackness on the tips that comes with an unfinished style. The change in style is a tad jolting at first, but as the movie rolls along the style is easier and easier to accept, it’s still the world of Disney after all, only presented a bit differently.

Mr. Reitherman has crafted a fun and interesting world in The Sword In The Stone, but sadly he has brought forth of world that is inconsequential. Essentially The Sword In The Stone is a series of set pieces acting as life lessons, and while they are all effective in their own way the film never feels like a whole project nor does it ever feel like what you are watching matters. I found Merlin and his antics with magic, especially Archimedes, a lot of fun, but that’s as deep as the film allowed me to pontificate. I never found any real meat in the story and when the end does come I had the much maligned, “that’s all,” expression on my face.

As a turning point in the direction of Disney animation The Sword In The Stone is a very important film. As a film going experience The Sword In The Stone is a bit of frilly fun, it’s a lot like Chinese food in that regard. While I was watching The Sword In The Stone I had a good time, but I always wanted more and when it was over I was left without a contented feeling in my belly. I’m happy to have seen The Sword In The Stone and I look forward to where Disney’s animation studio will go from here, but those are the only thoughts I can muster on the film’s lasting power, and that’s not saying much.

Rating:

***

Cheers,
Bill

It’s not Christmas time just yet, but that doesn’t matter to my dictation in the Filmspotting Movie Dictator Club for the month of November, 2009!

Written By: Glenn Ficara & John Requa
Directed By: Terry Zwigoff

I had somewhat pleasant memories of Bad Santa, and by somewhat I’m talking about the three or four minutes that I saw back around its release that caused me to emit a slight chuckle. Not having more to go on beyond that very minor memory I was interested when my fellow Filmspotter, Smirnoff, assigned me Bad Santa for the November dictator’s club. This month’s category was great movies of the ’00’s, and while we aren’t always in agreement my friend and I do share somewhat similar tastes as far as comedies and action movies go. Bad Santa isn’t an action film though, so I guess that last part doesn’t matter, but do I ever love to ramble on about bullshit. Back on point, the question you should be asking is, “Well, what’s the deal, is Bad Santa really among the best of the ’00’s (man does that look ridiculous, stupid decade with its double zeroes)?

I’ll give you a short answer to the aforementioned question, yes, Bad Santa is one of the best movies of the ’00’s. Bad Santa is a vile movie, it’s characters are repugnant and cruel and not nice people in any light, but they are hilarious and Bad Santa never commits the cardinal sin of sympathizing with its characters or glorifying them. There isn’t much of a theme to Bad Santa outside of the obvious, “Fuck you and all your goody goody Christmas bullshit”, but that’s okay. Bad Santa isn’t a theme based movie, it isn’t in my estimation trying to be profound or say anything important. Bad Santa shows terrible people doing terrible things and it’s funny and awesome, and that is the entire point of the film.

I dare you to tell me that a drunk Santa kicking the crap out of a foam reindeer isn’t funny. Try and tell me with a straight face that Thurman implying his dad got pissed at him for crapping on his mother’s dishes didn’t almost make you piss in your pants. If you can look me dead in the eyes and say that 1) Tony Cox flipping it to Bernie Mac isn’t a hilarious bit of wordplay or 2) Billy Bob Thornton telling a woman she won’t be able to shit right for a month as he’s fucking her in the ass didn’t cause you to spit take then we clearly have different senses of humor and Bad Santa isn’t the movie for you.

You don’t need to be a Grinch to enjoy Bad Santa, all that is required is a basic understanding of the deplorable nature of mankind and the humor that can be found in our ineptitude. Outside of the genuinely great performances across the board, Billy Bob Thornton was born to play Willie T. Stokes, the true quality of Bad Santa is found in its unflinching look at these characters. They aren’t sentimentalized, this movie certainly isn’t prone to any Hollywood bullshit, and not for a moment does Terry Zwigoff allow for you to care about a single character we see on screen. He avoids the Altman mistake in MASH of trying his damnedest to make these characters cool. By showing them for who they really are and not for a single moment pulling back they do become cool in their own way. Not people you would ever want to know or be around in real life, but characters that are cool to spend an hour and a half with on the big screen, or TV screen, whatever.

I’m happy that Smirnoff saw fit to dictate Bad Santa to me this month, the pain in my sides is a good thing, I assure you. To break it down as clearly as I can, I enjoy movies that make me laugh, and Bad Santa had me laughing a lot. It’s not a dark comedy, nor is it a black comedy, it may be a midget comedy, but it is most definitely a nasty comedy, and a darn tooting funny one at that. Next time you’re at the local mall, assuming you still have one in this day and age, and see that dude sitting on that well known chair in his costume stop and think. Think about what he really could be like, think of the Santa Clause he may really be, and if you’re anything like me a giant smile will splay across your face. That is the true genius of Bad Santa, that is where it’s real lasting power resides, and that is why it’s so damn funny.

Rating:

****

Cheers,
Bill

Who wouldn’t watch a show about a big fat guy?

Written By: Lem Dobbs
Directed By: Steven Soderbergh

It doesn’t matter where or when The Limey takes place. Time is distorted, the film moves forward and it moves backward with free will. We can’t control what we see, when we see it or how we see it. The only man with any control is Wilson, his dogmatic devotion to avenging his daughter puts him in a place where he knows the when, where and how even when we don’t. I’m sure if you break it down long enough and hard enough a linear timeline can be formed out of The Limey, but that would defeat the purpose. The viewer isn’t supposed to be in control of what they are seeing, only Wilson is afforded that luxury.

For me two things propelled The Limey above standard revenge fare, the direction of Steven Soderbergh and the acting from Terence Stamp as Wilson. The two work hand in hand, whether this was as a result of Stamp going along with Soderbergh or Soderbergh working off of the performance of Stamp I don’t know. I don’t think we need to know why The Limey ends up as such a harmonious picture, we just need to recognize that it is such a unique union of talent.

One of the reasons I loved Traffic so much was because of the talents Soderbergh put on display as a director. The Limey isn’t as full of depth in the directing department, but that’s not to say that The Limey is lacking in the direction department. I thoroughly loved how Soderbergh played with time and space, both in static shots and in how he edited around any sort of linear narrative. By removing the linear aspect Soderbergh creates a vehicle for the obsessive nature of one man, and by cutting off the usual methods through which the audience gains their knowledge he forces the viewer to go along for the ride.

Despite his terrific turn in The Limey I will always view Terence Stamp as General Zod. I didn’t even like Superman II that much, but he created such an iconic character in that role that I will always remember him as the good General. Stamp chooses to toss himself completely into the role of Wilson in The Limey. I believe that he recognized early on how much the movie would depend on his performance and he made sure his performance wasn’t lacking. He is dogged, he is hard, he is believable, there is grit just as much as there is sorrow and longing. You fear his character a tad bit while cheering him on at the same time. It may not be the role I will remember him the most for, but Stamp as Wilson in The Limey may be his best role.

There are some odd moments in The Limey, moments that feel like they could have been done away with. I enjoyed Stacy a fair deal, but his storyline and that of the DEA/whoever the heck those black dudes were could have been done away with. Neither was done badly, but they do distract from the singular pulse of Wilson’s quest to find and kill the man who murdered his daughter. Still, that singular pulse manages to carry The Limey past even those rough points. It’s certainly not an original premise, but The Limey feels like a unique experience thanks to the performance of Stamp and the touches Soderbergh adds to the production. Every once in a while you need a good old fashioned bad ass revenge tale to make you smile, the next time you need that, make yours The Limey.

Rating:

***1/2

Cheers,
Bill

The film that many proclaim to be the Coen Brothers masterpiece!

Screenplay By: Ethan & Joel Coen
Directed By: Ethan & Joel Coen

Sometimes I take plenty of notes when watching a film I plan on reviewing, other times I take very few notes. When No Country For Old Men finished I looked over at my note pad and realized I hadn’t written a single thing down. This being my second go around with No Country For Old Men I can only assume that my familiarity with the material was partially responsible for the lack of note taking. The rest I chalk up to a film engrossing me so completely that I didn’t feel the need or desire to jot down any notes.

I am a terrible judge of time when it comes to movies. I will look to see how much time has elapsed in a film and realize that only fifteen minutes had passed by, quite a lower number than the forty minutes I thought had passed before my eyes. I always do this, I don’t know why but I always think that much more time has passed than actually has. Beyond all the usual accolades tossed in the direction of No Country For Old Men, I found it a highly engrossing film. It’s a very pensive film, it takes its time in frame after frame, but it isn’t a static film. It sounds weird to say I was on the edge of my seat during No Country For Old Men, but I was. My problem with judging time took a spot on the back burner during No Country For Old Men, a sure sign of an engrossing picture.

You can’t lump No Country For Old Men into one genre, well, you could, but you would be wrong in doing so. The Coen Brothers have spent their entire careers toying with genre labels and classifications, always seeking to blur the lines and show that a movie need not neatly fit into one genre to be any good. No Country For Old Men is a dark comedy, a thriller, an action movie, an indie arthouse flick and a far reaching character drama. As far as genre mixing goes No Country For Old Men may be the Coen Brothers masterpiece.

I’m finding that my thoughts about No Country For Old Men are scattered and hard to peg down. Don’t know why that is the case and because of that this isn’t a review I am particularly proud of. I’ll end by telling you that No Country For Old Men is a fantastic movie, a calm and measured presentation from the Coen Brothers that reaches high and hits as high of a mark as it could hope for. No Country For Old Men is a cool movie when it needs to be, a thoughtful one when the moment calls for it and scarily dramatic when you least expect it. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best explanation, and the simplest explanation for me is that I found No Country For Old Men to be thoroughly captivating.

Rating:

****

Cheers,
Bill

Film #19 in the Filmspotting World War II Marathon!

Screenplay By: Ray Rigby
Directed By: Sidney Lumet

I don’t often like to talk about the interesting movie I wanted to see as opposed to the movie I ended up seeing. The Hill leaves me no choice but to talk about that concept, because it best describes my feelings towards the movie. There is a good movie to be found in The Hill, it just so happens there could have been a much better and more interesting movie if a different path had been taken. Instead The Hill is kind of a jumbled mess, with too many protagonists and antagonists, it lacks the definitive punch needed to be a great movie.

Before I get into all that I’d like to take a second to espouse how great Sean Connery is in The Hill. Other actors are great as well, but I’m so used to Sean Connery playing Sean Connery that I forgot how great of an actor he can be. He never overacts, he never steps outside of the moment, he makes sure that each moment is about his character and not about him as an actor. I’m not a huge Bond fan, but I’d easily place The Hill as the best work Connery has ever done.

Back to the idea of the movie I wanted versus the movie I received. Sidney Lumet sets The Hill up to be a singular duel, a battle of the wills between Roberts and Wilson. I was digging that direction, I wanted to see that movie, but Wilson moved to the background in favor of Williams, while Roberts took a backseat to Stevens and the other members of his cell. Instead of a battle of the wills, Lumet crafted a treatise on the evilness that can be found on your own side in a war. While still good, the problem with that idea is that it doesn’t gel with where Lumet starts The Hill and where he attempts to end it, that singular one-on-one showdown.

The Hill lacks a personal feel, it never quite manages to get as in-depth with any of its characters as it should. I firmly believe this happens because Lumet move away from the one-on-one struggle and focuses on a lot of different characters, characters that are never fully fleshed out. I simply wasn’t as interested in the story Lumet gave me as opposed to the story that was present and ready to be delivered.

It’s not a bad film by any measure, but I was disappointed in The Hill. It could have been so much more and I would have been deeply interested in that other movie. The product delivered is decent enough and worth a watch, but it’s not something to go out of your way to see and it isn’t one of the better films found in this marathon.

Rating:

***

Cheers,
Bill

Maggie Cheung, Tony Leung, I’d be down for either, if you know what I mean!

Written By: Kar Wai Wong
Directed By: Kar Wai Wong

I don’t think I’ve talked about this before, but every once in a while a film comes along that causes me to experience what I call the “giddy factor.” What does it take to trigger this giddiness you ask? I don’t know if I can adequately explain why it occurs, but certain movies make me happy beyond the norm. I watch the film, everything is going according to plan, I am enjoying myself, then something clicks inside of me. I can’t explain what clicks, but suddenly I’m not just enjoying the movie, I’m loving every second of it. I’m loving every second of the movie so much so that I can’t help but get that giddy feeling in my stomach that hearkens back to Mom’s home made cookies or discovering Spider-Man for the first time. It doesn’t happen all the time, but when it does happen I know I am in the middle of something special, a movie to to take stock of.

I can’t pinpoint the exact moment when I realized that Fa Yeung Nin Wa was triggering my giddy factor, but I know that I was giddy for most of the film. It wasn’t one thing either, it was the entire package of the film. Fa Yeung Nin Wa was like an intoxicating drink, once I took one sip I wanted another, and then another and each sip was better than the one to come before. Maybe this has something to do with effortless progression of the story. This is a film without filler, Fa Yeung Nin Wa ponders and thinks, it takes its time, but it never feels like it has gone off the rails. Each scene builds after the next, creating an almost unbearable tension at times. Sex never occurs during Fa Yeung Nin Wa, but I’ll be damned if this isn’t one of the sexiest films I have ever seen.

Routine is a major part of Fa Yeung Nin Wa, but it’s not so much the routines followed as it is the falseness of the routines. Kar Wai Wong lulls the viewer into a false sense of security, this is a love story after all so we know where it is going to and what will happen, right? Every time I thought I had the routine figured out Wong would floor me with some new revelation. When I thought Fa Yeung Nin Wa was going to be a simple story of disconnect Wong threw me for a loop with the revelation that the unnamed spouses were cheating with one another. After that I suspected it was going to be a film about the lies Chow and Su Li-zhen, I’ll call her Chan from now on, endure at the hands of their spouses, then Wong punched me in the gut with the restaurant scenes when they admit they know of the affair. Finally I was convinced that Chan and Chow would never admit their love for one another, but then they did and in yet another moment of me getting bowled over by Wong, neither one followed through.

Much like the cautious relationship between Chow and Chan, the camera is just as cautious in Fa Yeung Nin Wa. Most of Fa Yeung Nin Wa is filmed from behind something, as if the camera is peering into the forbidden or trying to hide, but it just can’t. It’s a beautiful affect for the movie, because even though their relationship never reaches that next level physically, emotionally it does and that may be worse than a simply physical interaction. Or, maybe the camera takes this cautious approach because Wong is afraid of getting too close to the relationship and damaging it somehow, blossoming love is a very fragile thing after all. Maybe it’s just me, but when you can interpret different ways the camera might have been used you are dealing with a great film.

I have spoken in the past about the man crush that every male should hold for Tony Leung, and Fa Yeung Nin Wa further proves that it doesn’t matter whether you are heterosexual or homosexual as far as his appeal is concerned. Maggie Cheung on the other hand was a new find on my part. As much as I may joke about the sex appeal of both actors, that isn’t all they have to offer. Both are as mannered as could be in their roles, expressing the longing and pain of Chow and Chan. They don’t ask the audience to identify with them, they beg the audience to pay attention to what they are going through. That is a fine line to tread, a line that Leung and Cheung tread in exquisite fashion.

There isn’t a true plot to Fa Yeung Nin Wa, there is a story, but not a three or four act plot. That is okay, there doesn’t need to be a plot. The story is about Chow and Chan, watching their non-relationship, experiencing the formalities of their lives, the stolen glances, the longing and the ultimate resignation. It may seem like I am belaboring a point, and I am, but it irks me sometimes when I hear people complain about the lack of plot in a movie. Yes, there are movies that suffer because of a lack of plot, but Fa Yeung Nin Wa is an example of a movie that excels because it isn’t about any plot but the people in the movie.

I’ve come to the end of my review and I haven’t mentioned my favorite aspect of Fa Yeung Nin Wa, Maggie Cheung’s amazing costumes as deigned by William Chang. In scene after scene he draped Cheung in exotic colors that were evocative of the time, hugged Cheung’s figure to perfection and managed to bring out the color of the sets even more. I don’t often notice costume design, but the dresses Cheung wore in Fa Yeung Nin Wa drew my attention from the start, there wasn’t a less than stellar dress in the bunch.

After that false start we are truly at the end of my review of Fa Yeung Nin Wa. I’ve gushed an awful lot, but this is a movie worth gushing over. I seriously considered declaring this the best movie I had ever seen after it finished. But, as great as Fa Yeung Nin Wa is, I’ll need more than this initial viewing to make that sort of declaration. What I can tell you is that Fa Yeung Nin Wa is a terrific film, one that I am so happy to have finally watched. As I make my way through the career of Kar Wai Wong I can only hope that he can continue the wonderful film making I have been privy to in what I have experienced so far. Unlike its lead characters there’s no reason for you to hold back and show caution, Fa Yeung Nin Wa is a movie that is worth forming a relationship with, over and over again.

Rating:

****

Cheers,
Bill

I go back for more Woody, oh, that sounds so wrong, yet it’s so right!

Written By: Woody Allen
Directed By: Woody Allen

I don’t know why I like Woody Allen as a filmmaker as much as I do. He views love as a transient being, able to be tossed around as if it doesn’t even matter. Most of his movies deal not with love but with relationships where love is in the background shying away from peeking over the table top for fear of being hit in the face by an errant frying pan. Every once in a while he puts relationships either on the same level or just behind love and I never agree with his take on love. I go back to the term transient, because that is the best word to describe how Woody feels about love. Love isn’t a lasting thing for him, it doesn’t have much substance, you can see that in his writing and in his characters. Despite all this I love, oh what a phrasing conundrum, the man’s work and continually go back to see his latest and past projects.

My love of Woody’s films despite our different takes on love speaks to a few different things. First and foremost you need not agree with what a filmmaker has to say, too often we, and I include myself in that we, fall into the trap of knee jerk reactions to ideas in films that we don’t agree with. But, we don’t need to agree, as long as the presentation is good enough and we are given something to think about there is no need for agreement. Secondly, and maybe most importantly, Woody makes films that I like, a lot. A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy isn’t among his best, but it is still a film that I liked with many typical Woody touches that brought a smile to my face.

In a way A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy is different from other Woody fare and much the same. It’s not concerned with delving deeply into its philosophical questions or even the driving quandary of love. It is consistent of a Woody film to tackle such ideas, but by not fully exploring them it is different and somewhat shallow. A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy isn’t a meaty picture, there isn’t much here for you to chew on, but there is enough to leave you somewhat content. A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy is funny and that is a Woody specialty, although it’s very lighthearted in its comedy. Still, it is funny, I found myself laughing more often than not, and that is a standard of most Woody Allen pictures.

It isn’t a long hidden gem or anything like that, but A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy is a not often talked about Woody Allen feature that is worth a gander. It’s a bit of a picture at a crossroads, struggling to combine Woody’s existential leanings with his need to be neurotic and funny. It succeeds in some sports and fails in others, much like Andrew’s inventions. I may not agree with how the man views love but I continue going back to his pictures, and provided you don’t suffer a heart attack while having vicious sex tomorrow, you should give A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy a shot as well.

Rating:

***

Cheers,
Bill

I’m no sexual mastodon, but I would like to think I know which orifice my member is occupying at any given time, or maybe I’m doing it all wrong, who knows!

Screenplay By: David Henry Hwang
Directed By: David Cronenberg

As soon as I read that David Cronenberg was not the writer of M. Butterfly warning signs went off in my head. As the movie progressed what I feared would happen was happening. If this were a Cronenberg penned film as well as a Cronenberg directed film the ideas that the actual writer, David Henry Hwang, only hints at would have been explored fully. Alas, that is not the movie I received and I have to look at M. Butterfly for what it is, while always being aware of what it could have been.

The story of M. Butterfly is frankly preposterous on face value, but it is not a story meant to be seen at face value. The big question is how could René have spent twenty years with Song, had sex together numerous times and never realize that Song was in fact a man? The idea Hwang, or maybe Cronenberg, puts forth is that René knew all along, but he chose to live the lie because the lie was more appealing to him than the truth could ever be. If you are willing to accept that theory then the rest of the film loses its preposterous sheen and becomes a very believable tale.

The lack of heat or tension in M. Butterfly’s story is a problem all by itself, but that is a minor problem compared to how the message of the film is handled. The idea of a man engaging in a relationship with someone he doesn’t know is also a man, or even knowingly engaging in a transgender relationship is interesting. More than that it is a springboard for numerous topics relating to sexuality, when you take into account that René is French and Song is Chinese there are even more issues to be discussed. How their different cultures view sex, the role reversal in their relationship, the idea of sexual dominance as well as gender in sexual roles are all ideas that M. Butterfly explores. These are ideas I looked forward to seeing explored in depth, but M. Butterfly never goes beyond the surface. It hints at its sexual related issues, but when it needs to explore deeper the film shrinks back as if it is afraid to proceed any further. M. Butterfly is a classic case of a topic getting too little coverage, and that is sad to say about a Cronenberg film.

Jeremy Irons gives another good performance, he has the sexually repressed individual down pat I do believe. It’s debatable whether John Lone pulls off the role of Song. On the one hand he doesn’t need to be womanly to us, only to René, but if we are to fully believe René could fall for Song then shouldn’t we believe Song is a woman just as much as René does? I don’t know the answer to that question as I see both sides of the argument, in some ways Lone’s look worked for me but in others it failed. I know some who didn’t buy Lone’s performance for a second, or the idea that it shouldn’t matter to us whether he looks womanly or not, your mileage will probably vary on this topic.

On the scale of David Cronenberg films M. Butterfly resides near the bottom of the list. We all know what Cronenberg is capable of, and he is capable of much more than we are allowed to see in M. Butterfly. I enjoyed that the film was willing to tackle such taboo sexual subjects, but it needed to explore those subjects more attentively. Cronephiles such as myself will find the limited value in M. Butterfly, but everyone else can keep on walking, because this dude does more than look like a lady.

Rating:

***

Cheers,
Bill

Always playing an angle, this man is!

Written By: Ethan & Joel Coen
Directed By: Ethan & Joel Coen

I first watched Miller’s Crossing around two years ago, at a time when I was not yet a big fan of the Coen Brothers. I believe previous to Miller’s Crossing the only other Coen Brothers film I had seen was The Big Lebowski, a film I need to revisit, and while I liked Miller’s Crossing a great deal I felt that something was missing. Two years later I still like Miller’s Crossing a great deal but now I wonder what I ever thought was missing, because I couldn’t find anything the film lacked as I sat through its near two hour run time.

Tom Reagan knows every angle, he understands his fellow man, how he thinks what he will do and how he will act. What he doesn’t understand are games of chance and women, and in that way he is a man that all of us can identify with. Miller’s Crossing is a crime drama, it is a gangster flick, it is reminiscent in ways of Yojimbo, above all those facets Miller’s Crossing is the machinations of one man. The joy I most took away from Miller’s Crossing involved Tom playing both sides against each other, the coolness that never left his mien even as another part of his plan clicked into place. The feeling that maybe, just maybe some scenes weren’t a part of his plan but he was able to make even those moments work for him. I sat watching Dane strangle Tom and a giant smile was splayed across my face, his plan was so well worked and at its most crucial moment he left it all up to the decision of one militant Italian. It’s not just pure genius on Tom’s part, it is excellent writing on the part of the Coen Brothers.

I remember when I first watched Miller’s Crossing the main complaint I heard towards the Coen’s gangster film was the slickness of the dialogue. “People wouldn’t talk like this,” I was told, “It takes you out of the movie when they speak in dialects that have obviously been constructed on pen and paper,” people drilled into my brain. I may have taken those misgivings into account after my first viewing of Miller’s Crossing, but not this time. This time the voices of dissent are falling upon deaf ears, the dialogue is perhaps my favorite part of the entire film. It’s like nails being driven into the wood laid for the foundation of an old style house. Each word builds upon the previous one, you take away one and the entire text will crumble, but as they build upon one another the speech reaches a point where it is almost transcendent. The foundation isn’t just solid, it’s fluid, adapting and molding to whatever threatens to tear at the foundation and rock it to the ground.

I’m going to take a second to talk about a smaller actor, a man who has spent his entire career as a bit player. The cast of Miller’s Crossing is superb from top to bottom, but the man who impressed me the most was lifelong character actor Jon Polito. His Johnny Caspar is like a revelation, a character so interesting that I found myself missing other happenings in scenes he was involved in, that’s how much Polito pulled my attention towards him. Every actor fully clothes himself or herself in their character, but Polito is utterly brilliant as Caspar.

In typical Coen Brothers fashion Miller’s Crossing flips from genre to genre with ease. It is a comedy at times, a drama at others and a crime tome at other moments. The film leans in many different directions but it never feels like its gone off the tracks, the genres come together for one cohesive experience. Miller’s Crossing is also a beautiful film to look at, the cinematography is gorgeous and like usual the Coen’s show an uncanny understanding of depth and space in their shot selection and placement of actors and objects.

The bottom line is that Miller’s Crossing is even better the second time around and further affirms my growing love for the oeuvre of the Coen Brothers. It is an interesting film, full of rich texture and layers, with witty dialogue and tremendous performances out the wazoo. Don’t be like that aimless hat blowing in the wind and miss out on Miller’s Crossing, and always remember, put one in the brain.

Rating:

****

Cheers,
Bill