Lady Vengeance (rewatch)

I decided to watch the “Fade to White” version, in which Park gradually drains the color from the film.  It’s an interesting concept, but as I feared, the execution leaves something to be desired.  Park uses color so brilliantly in this film that it feels like a shame to lose that.  There are times when the black and white looks beautiful and natural, but then there are inconsistencies in the grayscale tones between shots that are somewhat jarring.  This seems like it should have been a production design decision (i.e., slowly transition to less colorful elements onscreen) rather than a post-production processing effect.  It does work as an idea, but I rewatched the color ending afterwards and it felt much more powerful.  I’ll be sticking with the original version in the future.  As for the film itself, I still love it, easily my favorite by Park so far.  Of the trilogy, it’s the most entertaining, the most thoughtful, the most beautiful, and the most stylistically appealing.  Rating: 9

IMDb

Queen Kelly

Thank goodness von Stroheim didn’t get to finish this movie, or I would have had to sit through 4-5 hours of this shit.  In silent films, one makes allowances for some hamming, as the cast is forced to express everything physically.  But there still has to be a limit, or there’d be no such thing as bad silent overacting.  These performances are definitely overacted.  They’re all bad, but Tully Marshall is the absolute worst, doing everything in his power to exude “evil”.  The characters are all extremely one-dimensional.  The lone exception is the Prince, who for some reason starts out as a douchebag but then magically turns into a decent guy after sniffing Gloria Swanson’s panties.  I just didn’t give a damn what happened to Kelly, and the story was so simplistic.  It is nicely shot, and the production is festooned with a lot of showy sets and costumes.  And I was delighted by the gleefully sadistic scene of the Queen chasing Swanson out of the castle with a whip.  But I just didn’t care at all about the rest of it.  Rating: 5

IMDb

Hangover Square

A mild-mannered composer in turn-of-the-century London has blackouts, during which he commits murderous acts.  It’s a follow-up to The Lodger — same director, writer, producer, star and setting, and similar subject matter.  But there are some differences.  Laird Cregar (in his final performance before his tragic end) here is less sinister, but a more nuanced character.  The tone is closer to melodrama and noir than thriller/horror.  The story doesn’t seem to allow for as much gloomy, gothic atmosphere, although there are some remarkably evocative sequences, particularly the Guy Fawkes bonfire scene.  The main drawback is that the film is rather slow-moving, at least for the first half.  But it has a lot going for it, especially Herrmann’s magnificent score, which plays a crucial role to the plot.  Also a fun role for Linda Darnell as the manipulative femme fatale.  Rating: 8

IMDb

The Undying Monster

After being so impressed with John Brahm’s remake of The Lodger, I picked up the “Fox Horror Classics” which, for whatever reason, is all Brahm films.  This isn’t the greatest monster movie, but it’s got a ton of spooky gothic atmosphere, thanks to Brahm’s wonderful eye and a pretty good score.  I dunno, this has a pretty lousy rating on iMDB but I found it sufficiently entertaining.  The detective in the story has a female sidekick who provides some comic relief… I noticed a lot of other reviewers find the humor out of place, but I thought she was amusing (although there were some sexist elements).  Rating: 7

IMDb

Mossafer (The Traveler)

A soccer-crazed juvenile deliquent schemes his way to Tehran to see a match.  This early feature by Kiarostami contains a lot of elements you won’t find in his later, more formalist films.  Non-diegetic music throughout (instead of just at the end), a more artful, composed approach to cinematography, and even a dream sequence.  I liked it quite a bit, more than I suspected I would.  Although not as intellectually intriguing as something like The Wind Will Carry Us or Close-Up, it has an inviting narrative and compelling aesthetic values.  It’s kind of Satyajit Ray meets The 400 Blows meets neorealism.  Qassem is a very unsympathetic protagonist, but the ending suggests that perhaps he might learn a lesson.  Rating: 8

IMDb

Close-Up (rewatch)

While extremely simple on the surface, Kiarostami’s masterpiece is incredibly layered and complex.  Every decision seems to be a meta-comment… the switch in film stock for the trial sequences, the chronology of events, the doubling, the “faulty” sound equipment, the choices of what is seen and not seen.  It’s a brilliantly self-reflexive commentary not just on filmmaking, but also on class, acting, art, and identity.  And Criterion’s Blu-Ray is a massive improvement over the old Facets DVD.  Rating: 9

IMDb

The Damned Don’t Cry

A housewife abandons her stifling life and crawls her way to the top of the social ladder… but not without getting her hands dirty.  Joan Crawford is very good as the ambitious woman, still alluring at 45.  The film has some noteworthy qualities and there isn’t much room for complaint, although it doesn’t really knock your socks off either.  Perhaps Crawford’s character is just too hard to latch onto.  Sometimes she seems complex, but sometimes she just seems uneven.  Rating: 7

IMDb

Avatar

Yes, I am the last white male (or blue male, I guess) aged 10 to 45 on the planet to see Avatar.  And yes, I know that you have to see it in 3D to get the full experience, but too fucking bad.  3D gives me a headache, and besides, I missed my chance.  So… I’m sure people familiar with my usual cinematic sensibilities are expecting me to slam this movie.  But I don’t hate James Cameron.  In fact, I’ve liked most of his movies, even Titanic a little bit.  So although I was well familiar with the general consensus on Avatar (effects amazing, story sucks) I wasn’t anticipating that I would despise it.  And I didn’t… but I didn’t like it that much either.  The film is largely one awful, tired Hollywood cliché after another, honestly too many to count.  The messages are paper-thin and all the characters are poorly drawn.  There’s a lot of laughable dialogue (and a whole lot of “GO GO GO!” and “MOVE MOVE MOVE!”).  Even though the military are the bad guys (REALLY REALLY BAD GUYS, as we are constantly reminded) I think Cameron secretly wishes he were a Marine.  He loves all that shit… the tough guy swagger, the military jargon, that sort of casual camaraderie specific to soldiers, the high-tech weaponry.  You can see the same thing in Aliens.  And frankly, the effects really didn’t wow me.  I guess the hype got to me, but I thought it would look more realistic.  Far too often I was surprised by how phony and obviously computer-generated everything looked.  Every now and then I’d find myself getting immersed, and then something would remind me: “Oh yeah, I’m watching a non-interactive videogame”.  Something too smooth, too perfect, or just too goofy.  I suppose this is where the 3D comes into play, it probably blurs the image to such a degree that you can’t tell as easily what’s real and what isn’t.  If I can buy into Spirited Away, I ought to be able to buy into this fantasy world… but I couldn’t, perhaps because it was trying too hard to convince me of its reality.  Nonetheless, I’m not a total stick-in-the-mud, and there were moments where I was engaged and enjoying the spectacle.  If the effects aren’t all they’re cracked up to be, they’re still impressive, and I’ll give the fans the benefit of the doubt that they’re more so in 3D.  Rating: 6

IMDb

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels

My first Guy Ritchie movie.  It really wasn’t as bad as I expected.  I had feared it would be a lot of hip, flashy tough guys with attitude, spouting stupid one-liners and an orgy of senseless violence and all that.  Aaaaand… well, it was that, but not to the unbearable degree I thought it would be.  The four guys at the center were not as annoying as the rest of the characters, at least.  And Ritchie does seem to have a knack for crafting an intricate, Tarantino-esque scenario with some clever business.  The jokes weren’t that great, but they weren’t groaners either.  I wouldn’t watch it again, but it didn’t fill me with hate either.  Rating: 7

IMDb

Shutter Island

This was a case where the twist was so clear from the trailer that I thought, “Well, that can’t possibly be the twist, they would never make it that obvious”.  But yeah, they sure did.  However, I’m of the belief that if knowing the twist ruins the movie, the movie sucks anyway.  And Shutter Island doesn’t suck.  Scorsese pulls off a psychological thriller quite well, in fact.  Even when you think you know what’s coming, you’re waiting to see how it plays out, and looking for clues.  There are surprises to be had, and some interesting performances, and a lot of great camerawork.  I will say that it’s disappointing to see Scorsese stoop so low as to do the “overhead camera with actor staring up at it screaming NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!” shot.  And the explanation that goes along with the twist is a teensy bit hard to swallow.  But for the vast majority of the film I really enjoyed it.  Rating: 8

IMDb