Director: Brian De Palma
Starring Al Pacino, Steven Bauer, Michelle Pfieffer.
Scarface, on so many levels, should not work. It has the cheesy 1980s decor, hammy, extravagant acting, indulgent direction and a script that could have possibly been scrawled on a napkin in ten minutes. There's no hugely intelligent dialogue.
But it does work. It's the gangster film of the 1980s, the pinnacle of excess and corruption, perfectly capturing Miami and the seedy underworld that dominates it. It's a thrilling picture, charting a Cuban druglord's rise to power from the streets, a rise that admittedly happens too quickly within the film - it takes around forty-five minutes from him working in a fast food stall to running the most powerful gang in Miami. But that it what makes the film - it is lean and quick. De Palma cuts out every unnecessary scene like fat from a chunk of meat. There is no padding to be found and the pacing and editing work is truly excellent.
Pacino himself, while turning in possibly the most scenery-chewing, hammy performance of his career, is perfect within the context of the film. His dodgy Cuban accent matches with the decadence of the surroundings. His hyperactive gnashing is in tone with a film in which men are gored by chainsaws during a simple drug deal, Tony Montana (Pacino) snorts a mountain of cocaine on his desk. Indeed, Pacino's performance is a force of nature, a whirlwind that the film depends on and is paid back in spades. He makes the film far more than any mere title character. It explains why Tony Montana is still such an iconic character of cinema today.
Unfortunately, as Pacino rips through the film like a hurricane, supporting characters barely make a breeze. Robert Loggia is solid as Montana's mentor and enemy. Steven Bauer's character is sorely underdeveloped and could have been as equally interesting as Montana. Pfieffer sounds half-asleep and never has any real dramatic impact. It appears she was cast more for her name than her acting ability.
The cinematography works effectively - the bright neon lights of Miami reflect perfectly the seediness of the place. The audience is at once entranced and disgusted by the self-indulgence and depravity of Tony Montana's world. The film is quintessentially a 1980s picture, and could not have worked in any other time period.
As the film wears on, you might laugh at the dated sets and scenery, the extravagance of Pacino's performance. But it is after the film that the impact sets in - it displays effectively how young turks like Montana with a drunk sense of power very quickly meet their end. The final shootout is explosive, hitting the audience with the force of a sledgehammer and one of the most memorable scenes in cinema.
A memorable, thrilling gangster film that, despite showing its age, perfectly demonstrates the decadence of the time period with a volatile, showstopping turn by Pacino.
Rating: 8/10.
Monday, 2 March 2009
Sunday, 1 March 2009
Amadeus (1984)
Director: Milos Forman
Starring F. Murray Abraham, Tom Hulce, Elizabeth Berridge.
Amadeus clocks in at two hours forty minutes long approximately. It felt like less than an hour. A wonderful film of Shakespearean proportions, mixed with dashes of intrigue, mystery and operatic turns were not what I was expecting. I was expecting a relatively entertaining, if rather lifeless biopic of the composer. Amadeus delivers on such a greater level than that.
Milos Forman, director of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, manages to find the careful balance that so many recent biopics have failed by - he treats his subject matter with respect and dignity, but still finds enough material to create a thoroughly entertaining, meaningful film. The first aspect you may notice, within the first half hour or so, is despite the film's title character, Amadeus Mozart (Hulce), it seems to focus on a fellow composer, Salieri (Abraham). Thus is where the real innovation of Amadeus lies, telling the story of Mozart through the eyes of a composer who idolised and envied him bitterly.
Salieri, the court composer of Vienna, is competent at his work - music he has worked all his life to perfect. However, he finds himself being upstaged by a brash, infantile Mozart, a young composer who recently arrived in Vienna, who is already twice the composer Salieri is, and years younger. The film's base is on Salieri. The title is a lie. Salieri becomes jealous of Mozart's abilities, while at the same time, being his greatest admirer, and one of the few who can truly understand and appreciate his work.
Salieri is played magnificently by F. Murray Abraham. Tom Hulce might have the more noticeable role as the foppish Mozart, and make no mistake, Hulce is very impressive. But Abraham quietly steals the show with an understated, remarkably restrained performance. It would have been easy to allow himself to slip into extravagance to match Hulce, and he never does. It is so easy to believe Salieri's bitterness and deep rooted rage. The twist of Amadeus is that Salieri, who would normally be considered as the 'villain' of the piece, is a far more sympathetic and human character than Mozart himself. From his perspective, it is easy for the audience to understand - I doubt anyone has never been jealous of another's superior talent or possessions. Mozart's apparent invincibility as a composer only make Salieri all the more human, and somehow, likeable. His despicable deeds to undermine Mozart gain sympathy because of Abraham's quiet desperation.
The setting of the film itself is operatic - Prague, standing in for Vienna, is beautifully captured by the marvellous attention to detail - the costume design and makeup is lavish and sumptuous for the age. The supporting cast is solid, but never overwhelms the duel/duet (however you see it) of Abraham and Hulce.
The film is a tragedy - Salieri begins to respect and admire Mozart but far too late to prevent the consequences of his actions. The final hour is laden with irony that only Salieri seems to appreciate - he is the controlling factor of the entire film, and we learn far more about him than we do about Mozart. He is slowly driven insane with the thought of his own mediocrity and mortality, morally ambiguous, and disturbingly human. I think very few audience members would be completely disgusted with Salieri's actions by the end - indeed, it might ring all too true for some.
A wonderful, remarkable period piece without the dryness of usual biopics.
Rating: 9/10.
Starring F. Murray Abraham, Tom Hulce, Elizabeth Berridge.
Amadeus clocks in at two hours forty minutes long approximately. It felt like less than an hour. A wonderful film of Shakespearean proportions, mixed with dashes of intrigue, mystery and operatic turns were not what I was expecting. I was expecting a relatively entertaining, if rather lifeless biopic of the composer. Amadeus delivers on such a greater level than that.
Milos Forman, director of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, manages to find the careful balance that so many recent biopics have failed by - he treats his subject matter with respect and dignity, but still finds enough material to create a thoroughly entertaining, meaningful film. The first aspect you may notice, within the first half hour or so, is despite the film's title character, Amadeus Mozart (Hulce), it seems to focus on a fellow composer, Salieri (Abraham). Thus is where the real innovation of Amadeus lies, telling the story of Mozart through the eyes of a composer who idolised and envied him bitterly.
Salieri, the court composer of Vienna, is competent at his work - music he has worked all his life to perfect. However, he finds himself being upstaged by a brash, infantile Mozart, a young composer who recently arrived in Vienna, who is already twice the composer Salieri is, and years younger. The film's base is on Salieri. The title is a lie. Salieri becomes jealous of Mozart's abilities, while at the same time, being his greatest admirer, and one of the few who can truly understand and appreciate his work.
Salieri is played magnificently by F. Murray Abraham. Tom Hulce might have the more noticeable role as the foppish Mozart, and make no mistake, Hulce is very impressive. But Abraham quietly steals the show with an understated, remarkably restrained performance. It would have been easy to allow himself to slip into extravagance to match Hulce, and he never does. It is so easy to believe Salieri's bitterness and deep rooted rage. The twist of Amadeus is that Salieri, who would normally be considered as the 'villain' of the piece, is a far more sympathetic and human character than Mozart himself. From his perspective, it is easy for the audience to understand - I doubt anyone has never been jealous of another's superior talent or possessions. Mozart's apparent invincibility as a composer only make Salieri all the more human, and somehow, likeable. His despicable deeds to undermine Mozart gain sympathy because of Abraham's quiet desperation.
The setting of the film itself is operatic - Prague, standing in for Vienna, is beautifully captured by the marvellous attention to detail - the costume design and makeup is lavish and sumptuous for the age. The supporting cast is solid, but never overwhelms the duel/duet (however you see it) of Abraham and Hulce.
The film is a tragedy - Salieri begins to respect and admire Mozart but far too late to prevent the consequences of his actions. The final hour is laden with irony that only Salieri seems to appreciate - he is the controlling factor of the entire film, and we learn far more about him than we do about Mozart. He is slowly driven insane with the thought of his own mediocrity and mortality, morally ambiguous, and disturbingly human. I think very few audience members would be completely disgusted with Salieri's actions by the end - indeed, it might ring all too true for some.
A wonderful, remarkable period piece without the dryness of usual biopics.
Rating: 9/10.
Gran Torino (2008)
Director: Clint Eastwood
Starring Clint Eastwood, Christopher Carley, Bee Vang, Ahney Her.
Gran Torino is a film of two halves. It bears all the traditional hallmarks of a Clint Eastwood movie – an underdog protecting a group of disadvantaged people from thugs or bullies. This is Unforgiven updated to the 21st century, and being a huge Eastwood fan, I really wanted it to work. Walt Kowalski, a grizzled Korean War veteran, is typical of Eastwood’s characters. So typical, he is a stereotype. You’ve seen it all before, he’s done it all before – the film is like a Clint Greatest Hits collection. The silent showdowns of the Man With No Name, the growling voice of Dirty Harry, the avenging angel that is the Preacher. Eastwood unsuccessfully attempts to create a strange amalgamation of all of these characters, to the point that only several times in the film do we see a flash of something new and interesting.
The first half is disappointing – repetition rules the first twenty minutes as we see Eastwood’s grumpy Kowalski brush aside every offer of help or friendship from the local priest (Carley, totally unsuitable in what should have been a crucial role.) The racist slurs are thrown left and right, as Eastwood, on and off screen, tries a little too hard to show what vultures his family are, how grizzled Kowalski is and how much he hates the ‘gooks’ next door. Eastwood’s cantankerous, ill-tempered characterisation already is a cliché – he makes it even more so in the first forty-five minutes. By the time the second half begins, it is difficult to take the film seriously, as I was left with an uneasy feeling – is it supposed to be unintentionally funny or are we supposed to see humour in an 80 year old man beating up thugs a quarter of his age?
While the first half builds up an unrealistic world of 80 year old men being intimidating, no matter how much they resemble Clint Eastwood, the second half tears this down. Eastwood has tremendous rapport with Sue (Ahney Her, remarkable in a debut role) but little with Thao, the principal supporting character and the young man he takes under his wing. This relationship, which should have been essential to the film, is weak. Only until Sue is brutally raped do we see a side to Eastwood that should have been present from the beginning – he becomes a very human character. He cries in the dark, smashes tables and cabinets in anger, and goes looking for vengeance. This sudden injection of realism contrasts with everything in the film before, and cripples Torino because of it.
The ending is the standout piece, an unusual, interesting twist on the Eastwood film legend. He wins, but there is a tremendous sacrifice that has to be made for it. Only then do we truly care for the character, but it comes far too late, and I am left wondering what a magnificent film this could have been had it ditched the stereotype, inexperienced actors and 2D characters in the beginning. The ending clashes with the remainder of the film, as in one move, Eastwood rejects the violence that has defined his career, while only an hour earlier, he revels in it. Unforgiven would have been a far better swansong for a beloved, respected actor and director.
Rating: 6/10.
Saturday, 28 February 2009
Deliverance (1972)
Director: John Boorman
Starring Jon Voight, Burt Reynolds, Ned Beatty, Ronny Cox.
Ah. Beginning my film blog with its first review - a tale of four urbanised men taking a weekend canoeing trip through an uncharted river in the backwoods of America and finding a hellish odyssey and terrible experiences that will be burned into their minds and change their lives forever. It's not the most appropriate film to start with, but it's a bloody good one and, seeing it recently, it's fresh in my mind.
I will state that this is one of the most disturbing films that I have ever seen. Not particularly because of the content as such (everyone knows about the infamous SQUEAL PIGGY SQUEAL! scene) but the fact that the film never lets up. From the first minute you are thrown into the boat with these four men, and the underlying tension is present throughout the entire film. Even at the end, I was expecting something further to happen.
The direction, by the inconsistent John Boorman, is no doubt the best of his career. The storyline is thoroughly straightforward – four men, urbanised and softened by living in towns for their entire lives, take a trip down an uncharted river. Only one (Reynolds) is truly capable of making the journey. The other three appear to symbolise as Boorman’s message of civilisation working against the wilderness. With the exception of an excellent Voight as Ed, the characters are never fully fleshed out within the script, and particularly Reynolds as the macho Lewis, remain stereotypes. But this is how the moral message of the film survives, taking its subjects down a hellish journey on what they assumed would be a weekend jaunt.
Burt Reynolds is undoubtedly the star of the film, taking what could have been a supporting clichéd, thankless role as Lewis and transforming himself. You sense why the others in the group see his character as the ‘leader of the pack’ – it is he who saves the two others at the last moment in a particularly unnerving scene involving two rednecks, Ned Beatty and a bow and arrow. I will say no more. The audience feels the genuine sense of helplessness as one of their boats smashes, and Lewis breaks his leg. The machismo, leader figure is gone, and the driving point of the final third of the film is Ed (Voight) stepping up to replace Lewis.
The technical aspects of the film are also very impressive, despite the, at the time, unknown actors and shoestring budget. The cinematography in many areas is spectacular, giving the audience breathtaking views of the river and surrounding forests. The characters are meant to be navigating an uncharted river in deep America, but at times the cinematography alone conjures up images of Vietnam in Apocalypse Now. The forest is suitably alien and foreign to these men, who find themselves in a situation they have no idea how to handle.
The film, simply, is one of the best thrillers I have seen, while at the same time, one of the most effective at displaying the absolute differences and contrast between man and nature.
Rating 9/10.
Starring Jon Voight, Burt Reynolds, Ned Beatty, Ronny Cox.
Ah. Beginning my film blog with its first review - a tale of four urbanised men taking a weekend canoeing trip through an uncharted river in the backwoods of America and finding a hellish odyssey and terrible experiences that will be burned into their minds and change their lives forever. It's not the most appropriate film to start with, but it's a bloody good one and, seeing it recently, it's fresh in my mind.
I will state that this is one of the most disturbing films that I have ever seen. Not particularly because of the content as such (everyone knows about the infamous SQUEAL PIGGY SQUEAL! scene) but the fact that the film never lets up. From the first minute you are thrown into the boat with these four men, and the underlying tension is present throughout the entire film. Even at the end, I was expecting something further to happen.
The direction, by the inconsistent John Boorman, is no doubt the best of his career. The storyline is thoroughly straightforward – four men, urbanised and softened by living in towns for their entire lives, take a trip down an uncharted river. Only one (Reynolds) is truly capable of making the journey. The other three appear to symbolise as Boorman’s message of civilisation working against the wilderness. With the exception of an excellent Voight as Ed, the characters are never fully fleshed out within the script, and particularly Reynolds as the macho Lewis, remain stereotypes. But this is how the moral message of the film survives, taking its subjects down a hellish journey on what they assumed would be a weekend jaunt.
Burt Reynolds is undoubtedly the star of the film, taking what could have been a supporting clichéd, thankless role as Lewis and transforming himself. You sense why the others in the group see his character as the ‘leader of the pack’ – it is he who saves the two others at the last moment in a particularly unnerving scene involving two rednecks, Ned Beatty and a bow and arrow. I will say no more. The audience feels the genuine sense of helplessness as one of their boats smashes, and Lewis breaks his leg. The machismo, leader figure is gone, and the driving point of the final third of the film is Ed (Voight) stepping up to replace Lewis.
The technical aspects of the film are also very impressive, despite the, at the time, unknown actors and shoestring budget. The cinematography in many areas is spectacular, giving the audience breathtaking views of the river and surrounding forests. The characters are meant to be navigating an uncharted river in deep America, but at times the cinematography alone conjures up images of Vietnam in Apocalypse Now. The forest is suitably alien and foreign to these men, who find themselves in a situation they have no idea how to handle.
The film, simply, is one of the best thrillers I have seen, while at the same time, one of the most effective at displaying the absolute differences and contrast between man and nature.
Rating 9/10.
Post Number One
And so it begins, though I have no idea how long it's going to last. This is a drop in the ocean of movie blogs on the Internet. And I'm talking about the Pacific Ocean here, not one of the smaller ones. And the films I'm reviewing are generally mainstream. Nothing obscure, or specific enough to attract people looking for French films about knitting made in 1931.
So I guess I'll have to make it as interesting as possible, through my (cough) natural charisma. And I would always appreciate readers leaving comments (not spam) and criticism, as long as it's constructive. People reading this might know me anyway, if so, hi! You never knew I was sad enough to start a blog of movie reviews without getting paid for it, but I am. And I wallow in it. Cinema is one of the most visionary, spectacular media styles that ever existed . . . when done right. I will be exploring the worst of cinema as well. Simply because writing negative reviews are so much more fun than writing the positive ones.
Enjoy!
So I guess I'll have to make it as interesting as possible, through my (cough) natural charisma. And I would always appreciate readers leaving comments (not spam) and criticism, as long as it's constructive. People reading this might know me anyway, if so, hi! You never knew I was sad enough to start a blog of movie reviews without getting paid for it, but I am. And I wallow in it. Cinema is one of the most visionary, spectacular media styles that ever existed . . . when done right. I will be exploring the worst of cinema as well. Simply because writing negative reviews are so much more fun than writing the positive ones.
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
