I like to watch a black and white film now and then, because film-making was so different back then in the golden era, and also because the films that last to this day have stood the test of time. The Maltese Falcon, starring the great Humphrey Bogart, is one such great film, and often hailed as one of the definitive films of the Film Noir genre.
The Maltese Falcon is a great mystery thriller. Bogart is private detective Sam Spade, a smooth talking veteran of the streets. It is his profession to dig up the dirt of human society, and he can smell a lie a mile off. One morning, the femme fatale in question - Mary Astor as Brigid O'Shaughnessy - walks in and asks the detective and his partner to follow a man whom the woman claims is holding her sister. Spade soon finds out that O'Shaughnessy is lying, but at the cost of his partner's death. The man they follow also quickly ends up dead, and a lot of suspicion is cast onto Spade.
What begins from here is an intricate mystery that expands and develops so smoothly I was rather disappointed that it was all over so quickly. Indeed, the film is just as smooth as Bogart's character, who utilizes all his wit to play other characters against each other to his benefit. Sometimes he is too smart for his own good, as he ends up unconscious in one scene due to his foes joining together. But he soon picks himself up again, and is back on the trail - the trail, that is, which leads to the Maltese Falcon, a statuette of great value and the centerpiece of all the characters' attention.
There are no sophisticated stunts or long and thrilling action sequences. What The Maltese Falcon relies on, is solely a gripping plot and wonderful characters. The film successfully flushes out a handful of distinct characters, all of whom are instantly fascinating. At the center of it all is Bogart's Spade, who's smart and witty, but perhaps with a soft spot for the girl. Astor's O'Shaughnessy truly exemplifies the phrase femme fatale, which has been used all to often to describe girls that are anything but mysterious. To our delightful frustration, we never know when she's really telling the truth, or it's just another well-conceived lie. Then there's Joel Cairo, played by Peter Lorre, who is perhaps the film's most funny and interesting character, who makes an impression (and steals the show from Bogart) right from his first scene. Finally there's Sydney Greenstreet as Kasper Gutman, a 300 pound criminal mastermind, who'll stop at nothing to obtain the statuette. And of course there's also a whole bunch of other supporting characters, in smaller but still vivid roles.
To sum it up, The Maltese Falcon is a great film built upon a host of strong characters and a witty plot that never fails to amaze with every turn. Some 66 years after it was made, it still makes great entertainment. A true classic for all film lovers.
9/10
Sunday, February 25, 2007
On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)
There are only two times when British super-spy James Bond fell in love: once, at the very start of his career as 007, as portrayed in the most recent Bond flick Casino Royale; the other, is in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, where Bond goes one step further and even gets married (although he also got married in You Only Live Twice, a somewhat arguable false marriage).
That's not the only distinction this film boasts. On Her Majesty's Secret Service is also the only film starring George Lazenby as the lead spy, and it's not surprising why. The film is deeply flawed, except during the last half hour where it partially redeemed itself through some very intense action scenes and a heartbreaking ending.
The first flaw is obviously Lazenby himself. He is not Connery, and I guess he knows that, but I find him caught between imitating Connery and building his own 007. It might have been better had he just stuck to his own understanding of the character, and not jump back and forth. For example, it would be hard to imagine Connery's Bond thoroughly enjoying a Playboy magazine while doing business; not that he isn't capable - he certainly is - but that's not his particular style. While it is arguable whether a Bond who openly acknowledges his taste in girls with little clothes on is fitting or not, it is at least a new version of the spy, and if Lazenby stuck to this style, it would at least be a complete effort. Instead, he goes about saying one-liners that he couldn't deliver, making us miss Connery all the more.
Then there's the flaw with the plot. For the better part of the first hour, the plot is quite intent on telling the love story between Bond and Tracy (Diana Rigg in a dignified performance). What Bond wants besides the girl though, is information on the whereabouts of Blofeld. So when he catches wind of Blofeld, the film ignores the girl completely for the next hour, and the love development is left unattended to. It is picked up later on, quite unexpectedly, with the girl appearing out of nowhere (no good explanation given) and rescuing Bond just when he's about to get his ass kicked. I'm not complaining that the plot doesn't make sense - they don't make sense in most Bond flicks - but the plot is thoroughly frustrating due to such above mentioned turns.
And then there was the music. Somehow the production forgot to include a theme song, and replaced in its place a theme music that's not exactly very good, which is further aggravated due to its excessive reuse throughout the film. I couldn't help wondering if the whole crew were uninterested in making this film work.
Then again, the film gradually sorts itself out this mess towards the end, as Bond tries to escape from Blofeld's hideout and a great chase gets underway. The action scenes certainly don't look as good as they must've seemed at the time, but the intensity of the sequences remain. And of course there's the aforementioned heartbreaking ending, telling us the lesson that Bond is lethal, not only to his foes, but also to his women. It is during this half hour that Dianna Rigg is especially impressive, and I couldn't help wondering what would have happened had the plot included her in the bulk of its middle act.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service is a unique Bond film. That doesn't mean it's good, but it's somewhat interesting, and it tells an important part of Bond's story - how he is the man he is. Sadly, it doesn't do so quite as well as it should have, which just reminds me all the more how good Casino Royale is.
5/10
That's not the only distinction this film boasts. On Her Majesty's Secret Service is also the only film starring George Lazenby as the lead spy, and it's not surprising why. The film is deeply flawed, except during the last half hour where it partially redeemed itself through some very intense action scenes and a heartbreaking ending.
The first flaw is obviously Lazenby himself. He is not Connery, and I guess he knows that, but I find him caught between imitating Connery and building his own 007. It might have been better had he just stuck to his own understanding of the character, and not jump back and forth. For example, it would be hard to imagine Connery's Bond thoroughly enjoying a Playboy magazine while doing business; not that he isn't capable - he certainly is - but that's not his particular style. While it is arguable whether a Bond who openly acknowledges his taste in girls with little clothes on is fitting or not, it is at least a new version of the spy, and if Lazenby stuck to this style, it would at least be a complete effort. Instead, he goes about saying one-liners that he couldn't deliver, making us miss Connery all the more.
Then there's the flaw with the plot. For the better part of the first hour, the plot is quite intent on telling the love story between Bond and Tracy (Diana Rigg in a dignified performance). What Bond wants besides the girl though, is information on the whereabouts of Blofeld. So when he catches wind of Blofeld, the film ignores the girl completely for the next hour, and the love development is left unattended to. It is picked up later on, quite unexpectedly, with the girl appearing out of nowhere (no good explanation given) and rescuing Bond just when he's about to get his ass kicked. I'm not complaining that the plot doesn't make sense - they don't make sense in most Bond flicks - but the plot is thoroughly frustrating due to such above mentioned turns.
And then there was the music. Somehow the production forgot to include a theme song, and replaced in its place a theme music that's not exactly very good, which is further aggravated due to its excessive reuse throughout the film. I couldn't help wondering if the whole crew were uninterested in making this film work.
Then again, the film gradually sorts itself out this mess towards the end, as Bond tries to escape from Blofeld's hideout and a great chase gets underway. The action scenes certainly don't look as good as they must've seemed at the time, but the intensity of the sequences remain. And of course there's the aforementioned heartbreaking ending, telling us the lesson that Bond is lethal, not only to his foes, but also to his women. It is during this half hour that Dianna Rigg is especially impressive, and I couldn't help wondering what would have happened had the plot included her in the bulk of its middle act.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service is a unique Bond film. That doesn't mean it's good, but it's somewhat interesting, and it tells an important part of Bond's story - how he is the man he is. Sadly, it doesn't do so quite as well as it should have, which just reminds me all the more how good Casino Royale is.
5/10
Flags of Our Fathers (2006)
Heroes are made, not born, and throughout human history, it has always been war - the apex of human conflict - that makes the most number of heroes. Flag of Our Fathers, a World War II drama about the legendary battle of Iwo Jima, is at its center a complex discussion of heroism.
The narrative is a structurally convoluted one, but it primarily follows two lines, jumping from one to another in a series of random flashbacks. The first line is revolved around a photograph that is now part of American history - the flag being planted atop Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima. The picture is an instant hit with the American public, and the war government decides to use it to raise war funds. In doing so, they pull out the 3 soldiers who were on that photo and still alive, and send them touring around the country promoting the war bonds. But the 3 soldiers share a guilty conscience, as they know some uncomfortable truths about the famous photo: (1), it wasn't a photo of the first flag that was planted, but instead the replacement flag; (2), the name list of the soldiers who were in that photo is erroneous. The 3 soldiers also understand what they are doing is important for the men in the front, though, and they dutifully play along with the lies, making themselves heroes to the mass public.
The second line of the narrative, is logically about the battle of Iwo Jima itself. We witness a beach landing that is in the proud tradition of Saving Private Ryan. The fighting is bloody and intense, and many young Americans were simply massacred on the beachhead. The film doesn't really show us how the battle progresses, how the Americans eventually take the island, which gives the violence portrayed a further sense of senselessness - why are these men dying there, what are they fighting for?
We eventually see the moment of the photograph, and the reality is in stark contrast with the propaganda. The process was simple, no difficulties involved, and the men were surprisingly ordered to take a swim and enjoy themselves afterwards.
As with any war film, there is a big cast, but the film basically focuses on building 3 characters - the 3 soldiers who returned to do the war bond tour. The 3 characters are quite distinct, and I won't go into a detailed narrative here, but their life stories (which is also told in a extended final act of the film) are quite insightful and interesting in and of themselves.
As I mentioned at the start of this, Flag of Our Fathers is a discussion of heroism. The 3 soldiers didn't see themselves as heroes at all, but it was useful and somewhat necessary for them to be made heroes to America. The real heroes, as they said time and time again, are those who died at Iwo Jima, who couldn't return to tell their tales. After the war, the 3 heroes of yesterday found themselves going back to ordinary lives, either living with their personal demons or nowhere as successful as they thought they would be (with all that publicity). They are quickly are quietly forgotten. Also conveniently forgotten are the families of the boys who never got their 15 minutes of fame, who died on that black-sanded beach in the middle of nowhere - the real heroes, it seems, are always nameless. And they never saw themselves as heroes - they just did whatever they thought was necessary, whether it was killing the enemy in grueling hand-combat, or standing by their buddies throughout inferno.
Flag of Our Fathers is not a perfect film. Director Clint Eastwood perhaps tries to tell too much, and as a result the film is stuffed with all sorts of messages. Towards the end, the film sometimes feels a bit too long, trying to tie up too many loose narratives. But these flaws are acceptable, and for the most part this is a gritty and engrossing film, and a proud addition to the many great World War II films of past.
8/10
The narrative is a structurally convoluted one, but it primarily follows two lines, jumping from one to another in a series of random flashbacks. The first line is revolved around a photograph that is now part of American history - the flag being planted atop Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima. The picture is an instant hit with the American public, and the war government decides to use it to raise war funds. In doing so, they pull out the 3 soldiers who were on that photo and still alive, and send them touring around the country promoting the war bonds. But the 3 soldiers share a guilty conscience, as they know some uncomfortable truths about the famous photo: (1), it wasn't a photo of the first flag that was planted, but instead the replacement flag; (2), the name list of the soldiers who were in that photo is erroneous. The 3 soldiers also understand what they are doing is important for the men in the front, though, and they dutifully play along with the lies, making themselves heroes to the mass public.
The second line of the narrative, is logically about the battle of Iwo Jima itself. We witness a beach landing that is in the proud tradition of Saving Private Ryan. The fighting is bloody and intense, and many young Americans were simply massacred on the beachhead. The film doesn't really show us how the battle progresses, how the Americans eventually take the island, which gives the violence portrayed a further sense of senselessness - why are these men dying there, what are they fighting for?
We eventually see the moment of the photograph, and the reality is in stark contrast with the propaganda. The process was simple, no difficulties involved, and the men were surprisingly ordered to take a swim and enjoy themselves afterwards.
As with any war film, there is a big cast, but the film basically focuses on building 3 characters - the 3 soldiers who returned to do the war bond tour. The 3 characters are quite distinct, and I won't go into a detailed narrative here, but their life stories (which is also told in a extended final act of the film) are quite insightful and interesting in and of themselves.
As I mentioned at the start of this, Flag of Our Fathers is a discussion of heroism. The 3 soldiers didn't see themselves as heroes at all, but it was useful and somewhat necessary for them to be made heroes to America. The real heroes, as they said time and time again, are those who died at Iwo Jima, who couldn't return to tell their tales. After the war, the 3 heroes of yesterday found themselves going back to ordinary lives, either living with their personal demons or nowhere as successful as they thought they would be (with all that publicity). They are quickly are quietly forgotten. Also conveniently forgotten are the families of the boys who never got their 15 minutes of fame, who died on that black-sanded beach in the middle of nowhere - the real heroes, it seems, are always nameless. And they never saw themselves as heroes - they just did whatever they thought was necessary, whether it was killing the enemy in grueling hand-combat, or standing by their buddies throughout inferno.
Flag of Our Fathers is not a perfect film. Director Clint Eastwood perhaps tries to tell too much, and as a result the film is stuffed with all sorts of messages. Towards the end, the film sometimes feels a bit too long, trying to tie up too many loose narratives. But these flaws are acceptable, and for the most part this is a gritty and engrossing film, and a proud addition to the many great World War II films of past.
8/10
The Prestige (2006)
2006 certainly seems to be a "magical" year, with two period pieces about tricks and deceptions released simultaneously. While The Illusionist, the first one to come out, appealed slightly more to the critics (judging by the reviews on Rottentomatoes), The Prestige, the latter of the two, offers a more entertaining viewing experience, though it will leave you feeling slightly cheated. But then again, that's the point of magics anyway, right?
Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman are in fine form as the leads, two young magicians bitterly rivaled against each other at the end of the 19th century. Their rivalry is a bloody one - it all started when Borden (Bale) takes a risk performing a trick which leads to the death of Angier's (Jackman) young wife. Angier does some foul play with Borden's tricks in return, leading to Borden losing two fingers. However, Borden is soon back on the stage, with a trick that Angier cannot figure out. And hence the rivalry intensifies, as both men utilize everything they have to get the upper hand against each other, including a tempting young woman played by the beautiful Scarlett Johansson.
To be true, The Prestige is more about rivalry than magic, and that rivalry comes in many forms. The most apparent rivalry is the professional one, where both men try to outsmart each other. But that rivalry extends beyond just their profession, and into their lives, where that most sacred thing of all, love, is also part of the game. And then as an interesting side-note, there's also the real-life rivalry between Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla, which is part of the complicated plot that writer/director Christopher Nolan is offering.
Nolan, who's previous works include Batman Begins and Memento, likes a story told in a complicated manner (as those two titles suggest), and he couldn't resist that temptation here. The Prestige is quite cleverly packaged, with lots of flashbacks (and flashbacks within flashbacks within flashbacks). That doesn't mean the film is beyond comprehension, because it's easily accessible, and the tempo is masterfully controlled throughout the film's two hour length, without any real lag. There is one flaw with the plot (as the film at one point ventures into science fiction), which some critics view as serious enough to jeopardize the whole film, but I see it as forgivable, as it somewhat fits with the film's hidden theme.
Indeed, in retrospect, the entire film is built upon a very simple idea, illustrated by the first trick that the film demonstrates - the best tricks employ the most simple ideas, and in the case of The Prestige, that means the best tricks are real. It's the consequences that we have to deal with.
8/10
Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman are in fine form as the leads, two young magicians bitterly rivaled against each other at the end of the 19th century. Their rivalry is a bloody one - it all started when Borden (Bale) takes a risk performing a trick which leads to the death of Angier's (Jackman) young wife. Angier does some foul play with Borden's tricks in return, leading to Borden losing two fingers. However, Borden is soon back on the stage, with a trick that Angier cannot figure out. And hence the rivalry intensifies, as both men utilize everything they have to get the upper hand against each other, including a tempting young woman played by the beautiful Scarlett Johansson.
To be true, The Prestige is more about rivalry than magic, and that rivalry comes in many forms. The most apparent rivalry is the professional one, where both men try to outsmart each other. But that rivalry extends beyond just their profession, and into their lives, where that most sacred thing of all, love, is also part of the game. And then as an interesting side-note, there's also the real-life rivalry between Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla, which is part of the complicated plot that writer/director Christopher Nolan is offering.
Nolan, who's previous works include Batman Begins and Memento, likes a story told in a complicated manner (as those two titles suggest), and he couldn't resist that temptation here. The Prestige is quite cleverly packaged, with lots of flashbacks (and flashbacks within flashbacks within flashbacks). That doesn't mean the film is beyond comprehension, because it's easily accessible, and the tempo is masterfully controlled throughout the film's two hour length, without any real lag. There is one flaw with the plot (as the film at one point ventures into science fiction), which some critics view as serious enough to jeopardize the whole film, but I see it as forgivable, as it somewhat fits with the film's hidden theme.
Indeed, in retrospect, the entire film is built upon a very simple idea, illustrated by the first trick that the film demonstrates - the best tricks employ the most simple ideas, and in the case of The Prestige, that means the best tricks are real. It's the consequences that we have to deal with.
8/10
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Hotel Rwanda (2004)
Human beings easily forget, even if what we are forgetting are horrible atrocities. And sometimes not only do we forget easily, but we also turn a blind eye altogether. Hotel Rwanda, a chilling drama about the Rwandan genocides that occurred in the early 1990s, is a slap to the cheek to all of us who chose to ignore what was happening.
The film stars Don Cheadle as Paul Rusesabagina, a well-off Rwandan manager of a international hotel. He is smooth talking and has the street smarts, allowing him to store up favors with all kinds of powerful people in case times go bad, and of course he makes sure business is good. Paul is a Hutu, the ethnic group that is dominant in Rwanda. His wife is a Tutsi, a smaller minority which was once the ruling class. There is bitter hatred between the two groups, because the Hutus were once oppressed, but now the tables have been turned.
As we soon find out - sooner than Paul, who is reluctant to believe - the Hutu militias are planning a systematic wipe-out of the Tutsis. It soon becomes very real, as Paul's neighbors are murdered brutally. Paul takes his family, and many other Tutsi neighbors, to the hotel.
The hotel soon becomes a refuge shelter, crammed with Tutsis in hiding. The white people are soon evacuated, of course, and Paul's hopes of the UN keeping order soon turns into despair, as Colonel Oliver (the ever-so brilliant Nick Nolte), the commander of the UN forces, tells him that the western countries aren't sending more troops and he could at most spare 4 men, who aren't allowed to fire unless being fired upon. "You're dirt," Colonel Oliver stutters to Paul in total despair, in one of the film's most powerful scenes. Nobody cares about their lives at all.
Yet Paul doesn't give up. Not because he is unselfishly altruistic, but because he loves his family so much. Indeed, Paul's biggest motivation in his efforts is his family, and it's simply basic human empathy he is showing while he cares for those others in need.
Paul eventually prevails, saving his family and some 1,000 others. But many others are not so fortunate, as we are reminded in the ending credits that over 1 million people were killed, while the rest of the world stood by and watched. Indeed, such a failure is not only a failure for the western democracies, but for all countries of the world.
Hotel Rwanda is powerfully made, mainly because of Don Cheadle. He shows many different layers of his character's inner world, and in one most memorable scene, he demonstrates that even something as simple as doing his tie can effuse such emotion.
That being said, the film could certainly have been taken to a even higher level. I felt that the overall portrayal, while effective, did not fully stimulate our conscience. Many have raised Schindler's List as a film with a similar theme, and indeed this film could learn something from Mr. Spielberg's masterpiece. Still, Hotel Rwanda deserves praise, and is a film everyone should see, so that we might learn a lesson, and not turn a blind eye to nor forget such atrocities.
8/10
The film stars Don Cheadle as Paul Rusesabagina, a well-off Rwandan manager of a international hotel. He is smooth talking and has the street smarts, allowing him to store up favors with all kinds of powerful people in case times go bad, and of course he makes sure business is good. Paul is a Hutu, the ethnic group that is dominant in Rwanda. His wife is a Tutsi, a smaller minority which was once the ruling class. There is bitter hatred between the two groups, because the Hutus were once oppressed, but now the tables have been turned.
As we soon find out - sooner than Paul, who is reluctant to believe - the Hutu militias are planning a systematic wipe-out of the Tutsis. It soon becomes very real, as Paul's neighbors are murdered brutally. Paul takes his family, and many other Tutsi neighbors, to the hotel.
The hotel soon becomes a refuge shelter, crammed with Tutsis in hiding. The white people are soon evacuated, of course, and Paul's hopes of the UN keeping order soon turns into despair, as Colonel Oliver (the ever-so brilliant Nick Nolte), the commander of the UN forces, tells him that the western countries aren't sending more troops and he could at most spare 4 men, who aren't allowed to fire unless being fired upon. "You're dirt," Colonel Oliver stutters to Paul in total despair, in one of the film's most powerful scenes. Nobody cares about their lives at all.
Yet Paul doesn't give up. Not because he is unselfishly altruistic, but because he loves his family so much. Indeed, Paul's biggest motivation in his efforts is his family, and it's simply basic human empathy he is showing while he cares for those others in need.
Paul eventually prevails, saving his family and some 1,000 others. But many others are not so fortunate, as we are reminded in the ending credits that over 1 million people were killed, while the rest of the world stood by and watched. Indeed, such a failure is not only a failure for the western democracies, but for all countries of the world.
Hotel Rwanda is powerfully made, mainly because of Don Cheadle. He shows many different layers of his character's inner world, and in one most memorable scene, he demonstrates that even something as simple as doing his tie can effuse such emotion.
That being said, the film could certainly have been taken to a even higher level. I felt that the overall portrayal, while effective, did not fully stimulate our conscience. Many have raised Schindler's List as a film with a similar theme, and indeed this film could learn something from Mr. Spielberg's masterpiece. Still, Hotel Rwanda deserves praise, and is a film everyone should see, so that we might learn a lesson, and not turn a blind eye to nor forget such atrocities.
8/10
Babel (2006)
Babel has received a lot of praise (and nominations), and I couldn't resist the temptation of internet piracy. After watching it though, I felt I might not need to break another law and buy the pirated DVD, because the film simply isn't that good.
There are quite a few films whose success are at least partially based on their structure and methodology (sorry to bring up a professional term from my own field of expertise...). Momento immediately jumps to mind, as perhaps the most structurally successful film I've ever seen. The whole film is all about its clever story-telling. Then we have films like last year's Crash, which is based on the surprising collusions of the characters' fates, as we learn that the separate story-lines are inextricably woven together.
Director Alejandro González Iñárritu's earlier effort, 21 Grams, is about solving the puzzle of the seemingly unconnected characters' relationships. With Babel, he shows even bigger ambition, by trying to tell 4 stories at the same time. Of course, these four stories are related - they have to be, right? - but that's one of the film's weaker points, because whereas in 21 Grams and Crash the separate lines clashed together resulting in excellent analyses of human nature, here in Babel they are just superficially linked. Most of the links are revealed quite early on, and there isn't any further development to the stories' inter-relationships (only simple references here and there such as TV news clips to remind us that the stories are happening parallel to each other). To me, this suggests that the film's structure has no real meaning except for the sake of being so, and that's my biggest complaint with this film.
That's a shame, because separately the stories are quite interesting anyway. It might be interesting if Babel was just a series of 4 short stories, not woven together but just shown one after the other. While this deprives the film of its current eye-catchy structure, it will force us to appreciate the stories for what they are really worth. As it is, everything in the film has a faint trace of pretension, a show cleverly put together in the name of art instead of haunting portrayals of real life tragedies.
The film boasts some big names, but you'll find them surprisingly modest - Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett are immediately likable as a couple trying to patch up their marriage on a exotic Middle East tour. What really steals the show, though, aren't the familiar faces (including Gael García Bernal from The Motorcycle Diaries), but the ensemble cast as the Moroccan goatherd family - the two kids, their father - who are at once truly believable. The rest of the cast, in the separate stories, also deserve praise for their efforts.
As for the cinematography and editing, it is equally excellent. There are some great sequences here and there throughout the film, making the film technically speaking hard to criticize. However, this only further emphasizes the film's shortcomings in its content and theme.
In the end, Babel is still a decent effort and a fine film. It is technically brilliant to watch, but it doesn't really tell us much in its lengthy (it's a long film that feels long, long) prose.
7/10
There are quite a few films whose success are at least partially based on their structure and methodology (sorry to bring up a professional term from my own field of expertise...). Momento immediately jumps to mind, as perhaps the most structurally successful film I've ever seen. The whole film is all about its clever story-telling. Then we have films like last year's Crash, which is based on the surprising collusions of the characters' fates, as we learn that the separate story-lines are inextricably woven together.
Director Alejandro González Iñárritu's earlier effort, 21 Grams, is about solving the puzzle of the seemingly unconnected characters' relationships. With Babel, he shows even bigger ambition, by trying to tell 4 stories at the same time. Of course, these four stories are related - they have to be, right? - but that's one of the film's weaker points, because whereas in 21 Grams and Crash the separate lines clashed together resulting in excellent analyses of human nature, here in Babel they are just superficially linked. Most of the links are revealed quite early on, and there isn't any further development to the stories' inter-relationships (only simple references here and there such as TV news clips to remind us that the stories are happening parallel to each other). To me, this suggests that the film's structure has no real meaning except for the sake of being so, and that's my biggest complaint with this film.
That's a shame, because separately the stories are quite interesting anyway. It might be interesting if Babel was just a series of 4 short stories, not woven together but just shown one after the other. While this deprives the film of its current eye-catchy structure, it will force us to appreciate the stories for what they are really worth. As it is, everything in the film has a faint trace of pretension, a show cleverly put together in the name of art instead of haunting portrayals of real life tragedies.
The film boasts some big names, but you'll find them surprisingly modest - Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett are immediately likable as a couple trying to patch up their marriage on a exotic Middle East tour. What really steals the show, though, aren't the familiar faces (including Gael García Bernal from The Motorcycle Diaries), but the ensemble cast as the Moroccan goatherd family - the two kids, their father - who are at once truly believable. The rest of the cast, in the separate stories, also deserve praise for their efforts.
As for the cinematography and editing, it is equally excellent. There are some great sequences here and there throughout the film, making the film technically speaking hard to criticize. However, this only further emphasizes the film's shortcomings in its content and theme.
In the end, Babel is still a decent effort and a fine film. It is technically brilliant to watch, but it doesn't really tell us much in its lengthy (it's a long film that feels long, long) prose.
7/10
Banlieue 13 (2004)
My interest in Banlieue 13 arose from the particular sport it featured: free-running. By that I'm referring to the fast paced stunts that are getting more and more screen exposure in recent years (the latest and perhaps most famous being the the first half hour stunts in the Casino Royale, the latest Bond flick).
According to Wikipedia, Banlieue 13 stars some of the sports' most famous athletes. And since the film is produced by Luc Besson, I was expecting some grossly over-the-top stunts. In that aspect, I've to say I was somewhat disappointed at the shortage of long running sequences. That's not to say there aren't many action sequences - indeed, there's a boatload of them - but I was looking for specifically the fluid free-running sequence. Perhaps I should check out some sports videos instead.
That being said, the film is interesting enough to provide some good solid entertainment, Luc Besson style. While I'm not a huge fan of the charismatic French film-maker, his films that I've stumbled across are generally fun to watch, and this one is no exception. The plot is irrelevant, as usual, and just creates enough excuses for the protagonists to fight their way through all sorts of chaos. Most of the stunts are finely choreographed and well-executed, but my main complaint would be that truly memorable stunts are far and few between.
In the end, this film is simply good action entertainment, and it seldom pretends to be otherwise. Worthwhile watching.
7/10
According to Wikipedia, Banlieue 13 stars some of the sports' most famous athletes. And since the film is produced by Luc Besson, I was expecting some grossly over-the-top stunts. In that aspect, I've to say I was somewhat disappointed at the shortage of long running sequences. That's not to say there aren't many action sequences - indeed, there's a boatload of them - but I was looking for specifically the fluid free-running sequence. Perhaps I should check out some sports videos instead.
That being said, the film is interesting enough to provide some good solid entertainment, Luc Besson style. While I'm not a huge fan of the charismatic French film-maker, his films that I've stumbled across are generally fun to watch, and this one is no exception. The plot is irrelevant, as usual, and just creates enough excuses for the protagonists to fight their way through all sorts of chaos. Most of the stunts are finely choreographed and well-executed, but my main complaint would be that truly memorable stunts are far and few between.
In the end, this film is simply good action entertainment, and it seldom pretends to be otherwise. Worthwhile watching.
7/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)