Category Archives: movies

The Great Gatsby – “Ol’ Sport!”

The Great Gatsby 

Gatsby2

Directed by Baz Luhrmann, 2013

John:  I have read the book at least a half dozen times. It is my favorite. And to be honest I went to this, half-expecting a failure, or nice try, like the Robert Redford/Mia Farrow earlier adaption. This one is spectacular. And even taught me something about the book.

Spanky: Not really surprised, as you were a fan of Luhrmann’s Moulin Rouge, which gave me a headache. Toby Maguire proves an inspired choice as Nick Carroway and he gets us through the preliminary stuff, where Daisy and Gatsby are pretty much mannequins.

John: DiCaprio comes alive in the conflict with Tom Buchanan. I expected that from the book. And Carey Mulligan, as Daisy, is fine. What I didn’t expect was to be emotionally moved by expected lines, such as Gatsby’s introduction against a background of George Gershwin, his comments on the past, the conclusion of the movie (and the book).

Spanky: I agree. Luhrmann has a respect for the original that should be acknowledged. What he does with special effects heightens what is there, makes it cinegraphic, it doesn’t compete or take away from the Fitzgerald classic. On the contrary.

John: In fact there are two things which actually helped me with the book. First, the movie focuses on Gatsby’s obsession with the past―his desire to re-invent it in light of his new wealth. Nick thinks this an unbridled optimism and I have to admit on the surface, I thought it was what the Midwest had over the rich, East Coast―and the reason Nick (as Fitzgerald) goes back to Minnesota in the end. But through the movie I see, Gatsby is being almost as unreasonable as Buchanan. Which leaves us, where? On to “point two.”

Spanky: I have to say, as a dog, “point one” didn’t mean much. Live in the “here and now” people!

John: Luhrmann does change the story to the extent that he has Nick writing a book about this as part of his psychiatric treatment. In the original he is a narrator who appears only as a kind of bookend commentator. So my “second point” is, how does art (writing specifically, but movies too) bring about a catharsis of our feelings. If Caraway’s admiration of Gatsby has led him to seek mental help through writing in rehab, then we need to ask how the story should be accepted, by us, if not on its own terms. That is profound and doesn’t accept easy, one sentence answers. But it is what great art does. It’s what makes this book a classic. It’s what lifts this movie above the realm of entertainment.

GO, GO, GO, GO (4 GOs out of 4)

Spanky: Let me think about this some more, but on the basis of your reaction, I’d advise:

BARK, BARK, BARK (3 BARKs out of 4)

PS When John originally wrote this he was thinking of Gatsby, himself, possibly Nick Caraway, but a few days later he realized that the theme applies to all of  us. Writers really do live twice, once when they experience something, a second time when they write about it. Fitzgerald’s book allows us to internalize, personalize this message. As does the movie. That takes a certain confidence in the reader/viewer. But the payoff is the work becomes theirs, not the writer’s or the director’s. It is the genius of both the book and now the film to direct us toward that, yet let us do it. We become the artist. Or discover that we have been one all along.

The Spanish Prisoner – “Excuse Me!”

The Spanish Prisoner 

David Mamet, director/writer, 1997

14612_gal

John:  This is the second or third time I’ve seen this movie. About three-quarters of the way through it, I think this is one that will out-Hitchcock Hitchcock. Then it goes wrong and I remember why I was disappointed before. Mamet is a great writer and the cast is good, but…

Spanky: I know what you mean, and I think the problem has to do with our expectations which extend beyond the movie.  Steve Marin plays it straight, and we expect him to betray us (hasn’t he already done that “playing it straight.”) But its Mamet’s wife, Rebecca Pidgeon―cast as a naïve, but trusting female confident―who we can’t accept as evil.

John: All of a sudden this is another twist and turn in a movie of twists and turns, but this is one too many. She has been the central character’s, and our, one fixed point in an ever-changing perspective.

Spanky: Part of the problem is I’m sure Mamet didn’t want Pidgeon to be the heroine and Martin and Ben Gazzara, the losers. And he knew he could write clever dialogue to cover the sleight of hand. He does. But emotionally, cleverness is not enough.

John: I love the way he plays off of Chinese tourist stereotypes, but you’re right. The Campbell Scott character (he is the son of George C. Scott, by the way) is our stand-in, not knowing what to believe or who to trust, but Pedgeon seems all that is right in a confusing, greedy world. To throw her out, with the bath, is to throw the movie away too.

GO (1 GO out of 4)

Spanky: If wishing could make something better, I would have been satisfied. John you may not be Mamet, and are certainly not Steve Martin, but for once I agree.

BARK (1 BARK out of 4)

The Place Beyond the Pines – “Fathers and Sons”

The Place Beyond the Pines

Derek Cianfrance, director, 2013

Gosling2John: Like with On the Road I brought a lot with me to the theater. I had just talked with my son in Green Bay and written a poem about my father who died twenty years ago. I wondered, what if anything, was passed on from generation to generation. In a way this strange movie gave me an answer.

Spanky: I know, unlike me, you had motorcycles for many years and also a few tattoos, and  even though three quarters of the way through this movie, I had no idea where it was going, I know what you mean. Ryan Gosling is killed off in the first part of the film, but his role haunts all of it. And the ending is so right.

John:  The third act starts to look like some kind of teen-aged vengance. It slows things down, and then, then we are beyond the pines.

GO, GO, GO, (3 GOs out of 4)

Spanky: I admire a movie that lets you bring your own baggage to it, and yet leave with more to think about. It is demanding of the actors, it is demanding of the audience. But that is what we value, because we have done it.

BARK, BARK, BARK (3 BARKs out of 4)

On The Road – “Bumpy Going”

On The Road

Walter Salles, director, 2012

88119_gal

John: This is a hard one because I am so attached to the book and to the times (a friend and I hitch hiked  to California in the sixties after finishing college). For anyone who lived back then, this is more than a movie we watch, it is one we in which we participate. Or should I say our memories do.

Spanky: The casting is excellent as is the historic recreation, but there doesn’t seem to really be a plot—other than drugs, nudity, writing, sex, discussion and more writing. Sorry I missed the “sixties”, John, but I’ve got this pointless travelogue instead.

John: There was an optimism out there then, feeling that everything belonged to everybody. We were searching for meaning and some of us found it like we have never felt since. But it would be hard to convey that to someone who didn’t live it. Kerouac’s book still does. At least for me. And the movie reminds me of the book.

Spanky: I was glad your wife wasn’t with us. Most women would be hung up on the subservience of women back then. The challenge is for a movie like this to have the impact of the past and somehow convey its equivalent for today’s audiences. That last just didn’t happen for me.

John: I think it does. I agree the movie seems plot less, but toward the end there is a longing for life to be open ended, as exemplified by Dean Moriarity and his father. I liked it that there was a genuine affection among the men, and for writing. That there was a possibility of expressing what couldn’t be expressed.  Jack Kerouac does that. And I thought the movie did it too. For the right audience, I give it Go, Go, Go (3 Go’s out of 4).

Spanky: Two Barks for a good try from me. Bark, Bark (2 Barks out of 4). “On the road?,” I’d rather stay home.

Skyfall – “Resurrection”

Skyfall, Director:  Sam Mendes, 2012

Skyfall 2 copy

 

John: What is it like to live your life in parallel to a fictional character? Oh, often it mayb be misplaced wish fulfillment and played by different actors…, but aren’t we different people at different stages of our lives and doesn’t fantasy give us clues as to who we really are?

This is the one Bond film (and I’ve seen them all) that makes us think about him and about our lives watching him. But it doesn’t skimp on the essentials either. The title sequence is spectacular; and I challenge any 007 fan not to have chills run down your spine when our hero unearths his old Austin Martin and the theme pounds in your ears.

The payoff isn’t this film, but the new beginning it promises…all of us.

GO, GO, GO, GO (4 GOs out of 4)

Sparky: I don’t know if any of the other Bonds could have pulled this off. Craig, Judi Dench and Bardem are such fine actors, allowed by a super-thoughtful script to do just that. Sure the special effects are spectacular, but so are the settings, such as Shanghai.

And the theme of resurrection—so welcome to older guys like you, John—is also one that applies to movies. This one shows them how.

BARK, BARK, BARK, BARK (4 BARKs out of 4)

Life of Pi – “Movies are changed forever.”

Life of Pi, 2012, Ang Lee, director

John: It’s Sunday night, hardly anyone is in the movie theater. I place plastic glasses over my regular ones. I love 3-D. Even the dimensional previews–Oz, The Hobbit. It makes movies become what they once were, magic. This feature starts out much more seriously than screen gimmicks. It is about religion, about God. It is the Life of Pi. Not just his survival of a shipwreck on a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger, but his life. Scenes of the boy underwater viewing the sunken ship, a whale becoming a constellation of stars, the tiger are spectacular—you have never seen anything like them before. But it is Lee’s not wasting these effects, conveying a story that will have you thinking about it for a weeks after that is so amazing. It is watching the final credits naming 1,400 people involved it the production of this vision that is so incredible. Movies will never be the same.

GO, GO, GO, GO (4 GOs out of 4)

Spanky: I agree. Movies are suddenly new again. The introductory structure (Pi telling his story to a writer) seems stiff and clunky at first, but its payoff is in the unexpected conclusion. And isn’t all religion two stories—one literal, the more important one figurative? At times, when this just seemed a survival epic, I started to get antsy. Where is it going? How could there be anything more than finding another ship or land. I’ve read other reviews that focus on the special effects and dismiss the story. But that is what haunts you. This is also an emotionally moving story.

John: And have you ever tried crying wearing two pairs of glasses?

Spanky: Life of Pi is why you need to set aside a night to go to a theater instead of watching TV. It does what no iPad will ever do. It involves you in a way I thought technology would never involve me. I haven’t seen a movie, I have seen the future. And it is more moving, more spiritual, more full of real wonder than I expected it could ever be.

BARK, BARK, BARK, BARK (4 BARKs out of 4)

 

 

Fargo – “Coen Brothers Masterpiece”

Fargo  – Joel Coen, director, 1996

JOHN: Dead-pan familiarity and frigid winter plus those Minnesota accents. “You betcha.” Roger Ebert said, “The movie rotates its story through satire, comedy, suspense and violence, until it emerges as one of the best films I’ve ever seen.” He then states that films like Fargo are why he loves movies. I feel that way too. I’ve seen this film at least six or seven times and it is always tense, though-provoking and fresh.

GO, GO, GO, GO (4 GOs out of 4)

SPANKY: John and I recently watched it on DVD and here are the ten things I remembered about it from before and looked forward to seeing again:

1.    Marge, with murder in the back of her squad car, driving through white snow and fog saying “And it’s such a beautiful day.”

2.    The scene where her old friend tries to get it on with the pregnant sheriff.

3.    William Macy driving out of the car lot after saying he was going to do a “lot” inventory.

4.    Body being stuffed in the wood chipper.

5.    Steve Buschemi’s wound after he’s been shot in the face.

6.    The Paul Bunyan statue.

7.    The value of the 3 cent stamp, where Marge’s husband’s drawing will appear.

8.    The two murders watching the Tonight Show after banging some prostitutes.

9.    Guys on the street talking about winter weather.

10. The intractable father pulling a gun and getting shot.

BARK, BARK, BARK, BARK (4 BARKs out of 4)

 

Brothers Bloom – “Game within a Game within…”

 Brothers Bloom – Rian Johnson, director, 2009

“Pick a con, any con.”

JOHN: When I watched this DVD I had no intimation that the same director had done Looper (recently reviewed here).Spanky thought that film, “frantic and confounding.” This one has a bit more structure, though and the overall effect was designed to freak out audiences of all ages. Though that playing with our expectations—con within a con—is what I find most annoying. Adrian Brody is perfect, the settings in other countries— spectacular, and the ending, though predictable, discussion provoking (What is the nature of the relationship of brothers in a scripted or unscripted life?). I think it could have ended sooner and been a little less self-explanatory.

GO, GO (2 GOs out of 4)

SPANKY: This sounds weird but a deciding factor for me was one of those special features on the DVD called “In Bloom.” I am amazed how much work goes into shooting a single scene. We, in the audience, take so much for granted. And if it is edited together and doesn’t quite make it plot wise, it is incredible that emotionally this film does work. Part Wes Anderson, Part Terry Gilliam this contrived film is unique, but less would have been more.

BARK, BARK (2 BARKs out of 4)          

 

LOOPER– “Future Noir”

Looper – Rian Johnson, director, 2012

Film making is a kind of time travel, and audiences figuratively murder actors.

JOHN: This might very well be the future of film noir. The movie is set in 2044, the period of the younger Joe who opens the movie by informing us that “Time travel hasn’t been invented yet. But in 30 years it will have been.” The practice is immediately outlawed, except criminal syndicates of the future begin sending their victims back in time to 2044, where Joe and other “loopers” can blow them away without anyone knowing or caring. There is, however, one catch: In order to tie up loose ends, the crime syndicates that employ the loopers eventually require them to kill their own future selves.

The retro-futurism on display reminds me of Blade Runner, and maybe that’s what Willis brings with him to the part as the older Joe. High-tech hover bikes are rare; old-school shotguns are everywhere.

The first quarter, is over the top guns and camera movement. The next quarter has some slow, interacting scenes between Willis and Gordon-Levitt (his younger self). Then we get a segment of “The Omen” followed by a conclusion that has (and I balk at saying this) genuine shock.

I wouldn’t want to sit through this again, but it was certainly something to try to figure out on the way home.

GO, GO, GO (3 GOs out of 4)

SPANKY: I thought it was frantic, confounding and the overall effect was designed to freak out audiences of all ages. There is a crazy mixture of city and rural, plus I have to admit an incredible ending. But, really, is this where films are going or an example of where they have gone that no one wants to admit.

The best part: what it would be like for the old you to be talking to the young one. And the dilemma the film poses when comparing these two lives is not a simple one. On those grounds, I give it an extra “bark.”

But as a movie we want to experience that fulfills needs we have that life can’t satisfy, I’d agree with Bruce when in a diner talking to his younger self he says, “I don’t want to talk about time-travel shit, because if we start, we’re going to be here all day, making diagrams with straws.”

BARK, BARK, BARK (3 BARKs out of 4)

THE MASTER– “Crazy Cult”

The Master – Paul Thomas Anderson, director

” Dianetics’? I sort of like ‘The Cause’ better.”

JOHN: This is a hard one. Not because of the Scientology connection (that is marginal at best) but because of the performances of the two male stars and a plot that let’s us draw our own conclusions. Joaquin Phoenix is crazy. And I don’t mean he is acting the role of a character who is crazy. I mean he’s crazy. And a drunk…and angry. The problem is he is the outsider through which we are to glimpse the cult thing that probably got us into the theater in the first place. And Philip Seymour Hoffman reminds me of Orson Welles in his declining years, not playing a character, but trying to play himself (there is one rowdy scene of him cavorting around singing that seems right out of the early part of Citizen Kane). Yes, there’s incredible  intensity between them (one reviewer called it “the dueling Brandos), but I think you can get it all just watching a close-up of Tom Cruise’s face on Entertainment Tonight.

GO, GO, (2 GOs out of 4)

SPANKY: I don’t know. I wouldn’t want to sit through this long movie again, I forgot the ending as soon as I left the theater and Joaquin Phoenix turned into a kind of Peter Falk Colombo at the end, but…it could have been terrible, and instead proved thought-provoking. Granted the ultimate transition for the Phoenix character was the rather sentimental loss of a young girlfriend he had during the war. However, the homophobic connection with the L. Ron Hubbard character digs beneath the surface of what each man wants from the other. And the single-take interrogation sequence and other exotic processes are all the more intriguing because we, in the audience, are trying to interpret their significance to the film. How often to directors put those kind of matters in our hands? That alone is worth experiencing this.

BARK, BARK, BARK (3 BARKs out of 4)