Posts Tagged ‘WWII’

Lifeboat

Lifeboat

Friday, December 3rd, 2010

“Lady, you certainly don’t look like somebody that’s just been shipwrecked…”
“Man, I certainly feel like it…”

Within the first 15 minutes of Lifeboat – a simple enough story about disparate personalities trapped together following a shipwreck – a baby dies and is given a sea burial. One needs go no further than this to realise just how far Hitchcock had already come, here in 1944, from his silent, British roots – but Hitchcock does. Later another of the boat’s inhabitants has his leg amputated with only brandy, music, and a kiss from Tallulah Bankhead to ease the pain. And later still, the boat’s entire population turns on a Nazi. This is one heavy-handed masterpiece of a movie, and I adored it more on this latest viewing than ever.

The boat serves much the same purpose as the train in The Lady Vanishes, keeping a perfect flow to the action, but the action here is far from the jolly romp there. Also setting Lifeboat apart from Hitchcock’s previous work is the fact that the lifeboat is all there is – the boat, the water, endless fog, and people. It’s the first Hitchcock movie that is entirely constructed before our eyes, no specific location made explicit… it could be happening almost anywhere, and really almost any-when. There’s even a moment where two characters are playing cards, and they’ve had to create their own deck by writing on pieces of paper (incidentally we see a deck of cards amidst the wreckage debris that Hitchcock opens the movie on). It’s the pure cinema that he always strived for. The camera never stops tracking with the ocean’s every roll and yaw, so much so that I imagine seeing this movie on the big screen could even make one a little nauseous if you’re prone to sea-sickness. The entire movie is a nonstop technical feat, and this is even before you add the characters and the performances behind those characters.

As with a couple of the other movies I’d already seen before in this Hitchcock marathon, there was just one moment in this that had remained with me vividly for around 10 years since first or last seeing it, and that’s the immense shot at the end of the German supply ship as it towers over them. Like the ending of Foreign Correspondent, it’s ultimately maybe not as awe-inspiring as remembered (the perils of letting a movie stew in your mind for so long without revisiting it, perhaps)… but the overall impact of these 90 minutes is utterly undiminished. As said by Bankhead in the movie itself,

“In a word: wow!”



Foreign Correspondent

Foreign Correspondent

Saturday, October 23rd, 2010

Kind of like the siege at the end of the original Man Who Knew Too Much, there was just one scene in this that had remained with me vividly since I last watched it; and that was the final scene, as the foreign correspondent of the title stoically radios in his report as his world explodes around him.

The rest of the movie is far more eventful than I remember. This bears resemblance to the chase formula Hitchcock would use many times through his career, from The 39 Steps all the way to North by Northwest. Speaking of the latter, there’s even a very close early version of the famous crop duster scene here, as our hero chases an assassin who seemingly vanishes in middle of nowhere. There are wide, quiet, shots of the locale, suddenly an airplane overhead, his hat blows off and, following it, his attention is drawn a windmill rotating in the wrong direction.

It’s not the only memorable set-piece in this movie, either. There’s a wonderfully suspenseful scene atop Westminster Cathedral as we observe another villain’s plan to push our hero off the precipice – an attempt that in true Hitchcock style backfires almost comically. Then there’s the climactic scenes aboard a passenger plane as war finally breaks out. They’re forced to crash land on water and there’s a simply astonishing optical effect of the cockpit’s window being smashed in by the force of water.

This is an interesting Hitchcock movie in that in it he manages to touch on dead serious issues, being the coming war in Europe, while for the most part being almost as fun as those other chase movies mentioned. Note that I do say almost …I’d almost certainly sooner watch one of the others. But I still find that final scene (while not being quite as bombastic as remembered) remarkably stirring even if it may seem a tad hokey today.



Shutter Island

Shutter Island

Thursday, July 1st, 2010

This movie is the cause of my complete blockage on the review front as I watched it about a month ago and simply refused to believe it left me so blah and with so little to say. I decided to wait until I was ready to give it a second chance. What can I say? I’m still left completely empty.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s stuff to like here. There’s so much, in fact, that this is almost the reason it frustrates me so to feel so underwhelmed by the whole. I want to love this movie. Scorsese does a Shining-like horror? I’m there! And the movie begins so wonderfully ominous, that stock music, the slightly-fake rear-projection on the boat reminding me as much of Hitchcock’s Vertigo as just a little of the opening of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull that thrilled me so.

The first time I watched, I lost interest fast. I think I was gone before the very first concentration camp flashback. I did better the second time, holding on to the plot for a good hour before the same thing pretty much happened again. I think my problem with this movie is that it shouldn’t need so much effort to follow, and I realise that some people will take that as in indication of my general intelligence but I’m still saying it. It’s a B movie through and through and Scorsese seems to know it… so why is it nearly 2 and a half hours long and so convoluted when the best it has to offer by way of resolution is Ben Kingsley with a stick literally pointing at a board that shows all the main characters names are anagrams of each other? (oops… SPOILERS)

After much reading of other people’s various interpretations of the story, I think I finally understood the variety of things I was evidently supposed to feel about DiCaprio’s journey in the movie, but I’m afraid to say I simply felt none. The final flashback revealing what happened between him, his wife and his children hit me harder the second time, I will give it that… DiCaprio’s pain in this scene is hard to bear and it’s the one place in the movie where the madness is truly scary… but it comes in the midst of so much nonsense, all of it seeming to take itself far too seriously, that it still didn’t fully sit well with me. I was more frightened by the implications of the twist at the end of James Mangold’s Identity than anything here, I’m afraid. And I know it’s “missing the point” to say it, but truly, Scorsese can do so much better than this.



Inglourious Basterds

Inglourious Basterds

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

This was another incredibly pleasant (if that’s the right word) surprise. I wouldn’t say I’ve exactly gone off Quentin Tarantino as a director but my initial approach to his films has become increasingly apprehensive since Kill Bill. I thought Kill Bill was perfect in every way, but when the Grindhouse thing came along I thought at first, no that’s taking the Kill Bill “thing” too far … though, of course, Death Proof grew on me with subsequent viewings (at the very least, sitting next to Planet Terror as it does, it appears to be some kind of masterpiece …).

Inglourious Basterds seemed like it was going to have even more problems for me as a viewer. The first being – though of course Tarantino has been planning this movie for over a decade – we’ve had two of these Nazi revenge stories very recently in the form of Defiance and Valkyrie so by now the “genre” almost seems old hat. The difference with Tarantino’s version, however, is the highly fictionalised way his story of WWII turns out. That in itself, however, while others whose reviews I read seemed to revel in the delight of seeing that part of history end the way we may all wish it did, really didn’t interest me so much. Call it the first surprise, then, how “into it” I found myself as the explosive finale goes down.

Second was a similar problem to that I expected to have with Valkyrie – and I loved Valkyrie, so I should’ve have been so concerned. It’s really some of the casting that worried me here – seeing actors like Tom Cruise in Valkyrie or Brad Pitt and worse, Eli Roth, here in period costume, especially in this stylised, fictionalised version of the time, really didn’t look to me like it would work even a fraction as well as it ultimately does. There’s an almost cheeky moment in the very first scene (or “Chapter”) of Inglourious Basterds that seemed to me like a reference or jab at the way Bryan Singer segued into having all his “Germans” speak English for 95% of Valkyrie. Here, a character literally just says to another character that his knowledge of the language they are speaking (French) has been exhausted, does he mind if he switches to English? It’s a clever moment, but it’s ultimately surprising just how much of this movie’s dialogue still needs subtitles, with all dialogue being spoken in the language that makes sense for the scene, and that to me is a Good Thing. Anyway, not for one moment did I have the issues with Pitt and Roth that I expected. For Roth in particular it may in fact be his best-cast role yet. I still don’t like to see him on the screen, I’d much prefer him get behind the camera again … but for this particular character, that works. The Basterds themselves, in fact, don’t occupy as much screentime as you might expect, with as much time given over to Mélanie Laurent and Jacky Ido’s story or the brilliantly wicked Christoph Waltz as the movie’s principal villain. So even if you still find Roth and co. unpalatable, there’s plenty more in the ensemble to get excited about.

Then there’s the soundtrack. Though I’ve never had a problem with Tarantino’s use of music, it’s again an aspect of his work that I’ve worried about more with everything since Kill Bill, where it seemed to me he had pushed it as far as it would go. There was the comment he made about this movie in particular that struck me as particularly arrogant, when asked about his use of archive music, that he didn’t want another artist making a mark on his work. (“I just don’t like the idea of giving that much power to anybody on one of my movies,” LA Times) All of that said, it is hard to think about these things when the movie is in front of you and the likes of Ennio Morricone are serenading your ears. There’s little to say but that what music he uses works … even the Bowie. The only moments where I questioned the soundtrack, in fact, were two short snippets of tunes he had previously used, in Kill Bill, but they’re really too brief to mention.

This is, simply, a terrifically made movie that works almost flawlessly, and I think you’ll find that hard to deny even if you disagree with the idea of it. There are those who still think of Tarantino as some kind of manchild who makes fanboyish movies that serve no purpose than to fulfil geeky fantasies and there’s plenty in all of his recent work including this that matches that description. But there’s too much here – more than ever before in his work – that shows a real artist’s hand. It’s too technically proficient and assured to be dismissed as the B-movie wish-fulfilment it might first appear to be. To be perfectly honest, I’m almost inclined to agree with Brad Pitt’s last line which I’m sure is pretty much Tarantino speaking for himself, and he should be so proud: “This might just be my masterpiece.” On a first viewing I find it hard to disagree, for it truly blew me away.



Valkyrie

Valkyrie

Monday, May 18th, 2009

I must say I was excited when I first heard about this as a reunion of Bryan Singer with his Usual Suspects screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie but moreso for John Ottman also joining them on both editing and music duties (which for me was one of the greatest aspects of Suspects) … my excitement ebbed significantly when I saw the trailer. Tom Cruise as a Nazi trying to assassinate Hitler … it just really didn’t seem like it could ever work.

The movie opens with Cruise speaking German in voiceover that quickly fades into the English we hear for the rest of the movie (the title does the same thing, incidentally). A lot of criticism of the movie revolved around this as a main issue but I have to say that by the time Cruise finished this opening narration, I was into the movie and it never struck me for the rest of the 2 hours that it might have been better in the native tongue (and I did think this of, for example, The Reader among others).

Perhaps it’s that this story, though based on truth, is such a wild one. It seems so much like it’s been ripped from the pages of a graphic novel than written as an original screenplay based on history that you almost expect a kind of B-movie, even grindhouse, approach to the film making. Though you know from the outset that their mission is going to fail, the tension comes (unless you’re familiar with the more detailed history, I guess) from wondering what happens to the other characters as it all goes more awry.

Underneath the shear thrill of the story, however (the 2 hours here never once felt to me like that long), there’s a surprising depth that reminded me of Defiance. (Again, unless you know the history, I guess) I found it kind of re-assuring to learn of these Nazis that showed a less robotic streak and considered a better, albeit risky, alternate path (“You did not bear the shame …”), just as I found it refreshing in Defiance to learn that some Jews weren’t entirely accepting of their destruction as we too often see on the big screen. They might make an interesting (though entirely contrasting in style) double bill … “WWII The Version You’ve Never Seen” or something.

I feel like I wanted to say more of this movie but I can’t find the words. I certainly haven’t conveyed yet quite how much I liked this movie in the end. There was something about the brazen anti-authoritarian stuff here (even though in the light of history it really just seems like brave common sense) that reminded me of V for Vendetta and as the movie ended I truly felt similarly stirred by the proceedings. There’s something here I’m sure that’s resonant, or should be resonant … or will be resonant, right now. It’s for that reason I can’t give it anything less than the rating I’m giving it.



Hannibal Rising

Hannibal Rising

Wednesday, February 13th, 2008

I have to ashamedly admit I tried watching this last year and I fell asleep – and I hardly ever fall asleep just ‘cos I’m tired. But I still gave it the benefit of the doubt and figured since I plan to make Hannibal the centrepiece of my Valentine’s Day this year as has long been my intention, I may as well do the whole series beforehand, and fit a virgin viewing in to boot :)

“You’re not following the human order, Hannibal. You’ve got to stop hurting the bullies.”

With a line like that and a cinematic legacy like Hannibal Lecter, this movie should really be so much better than it is. I was wary about a movie that looked so much like it was going to extend the “waahhhh boohoo I’m a victim of the 20th century” excuse for Hannibal Lecter even further than Hannibal went. Like I’ve said before, I think Hannibal is one of the most romantic movies ever … more on that maybe on Thursday … but there’s a point where the 20th century excuse can be applied so broadly as to demand a line to be drawn. So if you think I’m weird for thinking what I think about Hannibal, lol, then you might wanna think twice before venturing here.

In all, this is ever so slightly better than I feared (having fallen asleep the last time, how could it not be? lol) … but it’s ever too involved and procedural to the point of distraction. I was inclined at first to blame this on the adaptation process but as I followed that thought through I realised that actually, though the screenplay clearly tries to keep a lot of events in that could easily be cut for the screen, those events actually wouldn’t even be relevant even in the longer novel form. As the end credits rolled I realised Thomas Harris himself was responsible for the adaptation, so I guess either way the blame falls to him. There’s a good story here, but it needs to be so much clearer, if only to match the simplicity of what came before in the Lecter story onscreen, even going back to Manhunter.

It’s basically very up and down – for every moment worthy of the title, there’s something like the, “The little boy died years ago – his heart died with Mischa,” line that makes the psychobabble at the end of Hitchcock’s Psycho seem positively legit lol; for all the good that Rhys Ifans and Dominic West put in by being so totally different from anything else they’ve appeared in, there’s things like the mask thing … yes, it has more sense to it than my initial kneejerk reaction of “WTF, why would he willingly put that mask on back in the 1950s!??!?” lol … but again, it’s just not made clear enough what it is nor what it signifies; basically as if it’s purely been shot for the trailer.

But for all that up and down that preceeds it, the main “transformation” scene where Hannibal gets his first taste of flesh is actually quite beautifully done – Gong Li walking away, “what is left in you to love?” with his creepily familiar tilting of the head at her followed by the animal dive to bite at a cheek … I can’t deny it left me with something almost approaching what Hannibal left me with … albeit it far less romantic … it’s by no means a failure, and I’ll no doubt watch it again to see if there’s anything else to it.



Atonement

Atonement

Thursday, December 27th, 2007

I don’t know if it’s much of a secret but I really neither wanted nor expected to like this much. Though I liked Enduring Love, another Ian McEwan adaptation, and I love James McAvoy, my hatred of the kind of praise this movie has received – not to mention Ikea Knightley – completely outweighed the positives.

Within minutes, however, I was fairly hooked – those typewriter clicks on the score, the pace of the whole thing. On the technical side, this is certainly watchable stuff, even if the pace of its opening isn’t quite kept up after the first 10 minutes. But though I was impressed by how much it exceeded my expectations, it all comes down to one thing for me, something I’m sure must be conveyed better in the novel unless all of its readers are just the types that are easy to please – and that’s that I just don’t believe for a second that a child in the 30s (especially one we’ve seen using a typewriter which even explains the letter) would be given so much credence over such a delicate, even today almost unspeakable matter. I mean, if ever there was a time when children were meant to be seen and not heard it was then. And by extension, I don’t really see the need for the period setting except to have some lovely war and costume scenes for Oscar (before you say it, I know it’s adapted from a novel … but still …)

Though I realise it would screw up the time passed thing of the ending, were it set today, I’d buy it easier. Even if the “c” word has lost its power to shock today, and I don’t believe it has at all (just try saying it to 10 strangers, I dare you) – if a child points their finger at a young man today and accuses them of anything, that man is basically f**ked, not to put too fine a point on it.

But I digress … it doesn’t matter because the next thing we know, McAvoy is in France in a soldier’s uniform talking French, and the movie gets better from there on out.

Any film that contains The Tracking Shot (yes, it’s impossible to write about this movie without mentioning it) earns itself an immediate 4 stars in my book. It is that good that it’s worth watching 2 hours for 10 minutes, even if the rest of the movie doesn’t come even close to the beauty and skill on display in those minutes. Overall it kept me wanting to know where exactly it was going in the end, and though that ending is too jarring to be as effective as it wants to be, I’m pleased to say this was much better than expected, so much so that I really won’t mind how many nominations it gets next month for the Oscars … yes, that includes Keira, for whom maybe another apology may be required (but not today).



Molly: An American Girl on the Home Front

Molly: An American Girl on the Home Front

Saturday, December 8th, 2007

I’ll admit I was slightly bored by the American Girl series by the time I got around to this one, but while Samantha remains my fave (till Kit Kittredge next year, at least), this is probably technically the best of them to date. Maya Ritter, who plays Molly, is 10 times as natural as AnnaSophia Robb was in the first (I didn’t update my review there, but the one thing I would’ve added is how incredible it is how Robb’s acting has improved since that debut – she’s pretty bad there, though no less cute), and even Molly Ringwald is good as her mother. More interesting to me was the Emily Bennett character – I found her even more interesting than Molly. I was about to ask there, where’s the movie, doll and book about her? But of course Google has the answer, and the last two of those do at least exist :) I just found the whole “Christmas Carol” thing too sweet. Like, I knew it was coming at the end but it still totally overwhelmed me. Tory Green is great as Emily, anyway – she’s Australian, apparently which would explain her slightly OTT British accent … but if OTT British accents are okay anywhere it’s surely here. These are definitely gonna be an annual Christmas thing for me, I think … I hadn’t actually realised till today that all of them take the same round-the-seasons structure (though I’m assuming that Kit being released in June won’t be the same?). Very cute :)