Midnight in Paris

Somehow this is the only Woody Allen movie I've seen that's been released since 1989, though my Netflix queue tells me that will change soon. He doesn't appear to have changed that much as a writer or director since then, though I've gotten the impression that this is his best work in a while, and since it wasn't actually all that great, it makes me wonder how much he's slipped. Midnight in Paris isn't bad at all, and in truth I enjoyed most of it. But there are some things about it that bothered me too, and it really isn't anything new for him.

The most surprising thing about the film is its fantasy premise, which I didn't really know about. Owen Wilson is a stand-in for the definitely-too-old Allen, playing a pretty standard Allen character - a Hollywood writer who hates his job and would prefer to be a novelist. While on vacation with his fiancé and her parents in Paris, you see many cracks in their relationship. They don't fundamentally agree on most things, and you question how they got together in the first place. He's hopelessly romantic about the city and the past and being a real artist, and she wants nothing to do with it. But then while on a walk at night he gets into an old car with some people and taken to a party where he meets many famous artists from the period he's nostalgic for, from Ernest Hemingway to Pablo Picasso. At first I thought it was just a costume party or something, but before too long it's apparent that he's actually somehow visiting another time. By day he fakes being interested in what his future wife is doing, but by night he's showing his writing to Gertrude Stein and falling in love with a woman played by Marion Cotillard.

It's kind of an odd story, but it's an effective one about career and life in general, how we may not always be totally happy and satisfied, but maybe we're not supposed to be, and trying to hide in the past isn't a good way to deal with it. I liked how Wilson's relationship with Cotillard eventually allows him to learn what he needs to, and while it's not exactly the funniest comedy, there's some pretty enjoyable scenes. It's fun playing spot the famous person, both in the older artists being portrayed and the actors playing them. My favorite was Adrien Brody playing a Salvador Dali who's apparently become obsessed with rhinoceroses.

As I said though, there were flaws too, most notably perhaps being that the film is so yellow that I was often distracted by it. I understand wanting to create an aesthetic, but I'm pretty sure Paris isn't that damn yellow in any time period. The characters also often seem underwritten, or not fully thought through. Owen does a decent job with the character, and has a few genuinely very good acting moments, but it's sometimes hard to like him when he acts like one of the most deluded and unreasonable people ever. Actually experiencing time travel only gets you so far. And I think the story of his obsession and drifting away from real life would have been more effective if the people in it weren't so shitty. His fiancé and her parents and her know-it-all friend are completely unsympathetic. The actors are fine, they're just written to be villains, and I don't think it helped the story. If you were with someone who started talking about how they were going off at night and partying with Hemingway, you probably wouldn't react well either. Midnight in Paris is a fine movie, but it's far from Allen's best work.

The Thin Red Line

The only thing crazier than how many recognizable actors there are in this movie is how many had their scenes cut completely during the editing process, including Martin Sheen, Gary Oldman, and Mickey Rourke. War movies have a funny away of apparently attracting attention from everyone in the business, as The Thin Red Line was released the same year as Saving Private Ryan, which itself has an extensive and extremely famous cast. I thought it was less distracting here though, except for the scene near the end where George Clooney shows up to give a speech than Sean Penn narrates over.

The Thin Red Line is overall a more painterly and less action-oriented war film than Ryan, focusing more on the internal lives of the soldiers than the combat they take part in. I think they're actually pretty good companion films. Ryan is in the European theater and wears its heart on its sleeve, Line is in the Pacific and a bit more introspective and detached. Ryan begins with one of the most famous war scenes ever made, a gigantic, loud, violent slaughter. Line begins with a soldier played by Jim Caviezel resting on an island with some natives, and there's a full 45 minutes before anyone is in real danger. They're both gorgeous movies, Ryan with its color correction and perfectly chaotic action, Line with its more natural cinematography and focus on wildlife, and intricately pieced together battle scenes.

This is the first movie by Terrence Malick that I've seen (hey, he's only made five), and I was very impressed by his work, though I'm not sure how much I'd like his other stuff. The way intense fighting punctuates and breaks up the long periods of slow moving or still scenery with minimal dialogue creates an intriguing contrast, but a film of nothing but the latter might be tough to handle. Of course, I have no idea if any of his other movies are like that, other than to say I get the impression that that's what The Tree of Life might resemble.

In any case, The Thin Red Line is not a perfect war movie, but I do think it is a great one. There are many brilliant and captivating scenes, and even when things slow down, it's still very nice to look at. If there's one viable criticism, it does seem a bit scattered at times, as it sort of lacks a central figure, and instead bounces from soldier to soldier, letting them narrate their thoughts in turn. The performances are generally very good, even if none of them are terribly substantial. John C. Reilly gets what I think is a single scene of dialogue, and certain characters will pop in at a certain point and then just disappear completely, like the parts played by John Cusack and John Travolta. Nick Nolte might have the most dialogue as an impassioned Lieutenant Colonel, though Penn and Caviezel probably have the biggest parts from a screen time perspective.

It's hard to say whether the somewhat disjointed nature of the film is entirely intentional, or a result of Malick having to trim about 40% of his original cut, or if the full thing was even worse with the additional characters. I didn't really mind the movie being this way, because it was an engrossing experience while watching it. It does result in a slight feeling of dissatisfaction though, especially in retrospect, not having a real central plot to grasp onto. I guess war though can be a pretty existential experience, and this is about as existential as war movies can get. In that way, it's sort of a masterpiece.

The Pianist

I keep watching Roman Polanski movies and they keep turning out to be really damn good, so I decided to learn about him a little more. I didn't know that he escaped the Holocaust in Poland as a child or that his pregnant wife was murdered by the Manson Family. It obviously doesn't excuse what he did a few years later, but it does change my perspective a bit. He definitely uses his experience in the Jewish ghettos and avoiding concentration camps to realize The Pianist, a similar story about a real man who also avoided the camps before returning to the radio booths and concert halls. Movies about this terrible period history seem like they sometimes rely too much on the obvious horror of what's happening to seem powerful, but there's a certain frankness about the way this movie was shot that makes it all the more effective without trying too hard to shock the audience. The things that happen are brutal and awful to be sure, but they're not sensationalized, just shot naturally and letting the events speak for themselves. We're not forced to feel sorry for these people, we just do.

This simple approach makes the drama effective but also could have made the film a bit dull, if it was just two and a half hours of people suffering. But the pianist's story eventually takes some turns that are a bit less familiar and interesting to watch, and there are also a few moments where the specific nature of the natural approach makes the action immensely compelling. Several scenes where the brutality and violence of the film are at their highest pitch are shot entirely from various upper story windows, which has the effect of distancing you from the visceral nature of what's happening and making it feel completely real in the process. It seems more like a documentary at these moments, and it's more gripping than some of the most expensive action scenes I've ever seen.

Of course there's also Adrien Brody's performance as the titular character. The acting in this movie is generally pretty low key in keeping with the natural style, and not many members of the cast really stick out much. Brody also doesn't do a lot to call attention to himself, but there's a quiet, moving quality to his work that makes his struggle to survive interesting. His transformation from dignified artist to shambling, desperate mess is pretty intense to watch. It's a much more subtle performance than usually seems to get called out at the Oscars, and while I'm sure the status of the film itself helped him along, it seems like a good choice for the award. I have to admit that Polanski was deserving as well, though I probably would have replaced the Screenplay win with a Cinematography one. The script is fine, but the quality of this film is definitely in its execution.

Predators

It's pretty clear with this film that producer Robert Rodriguez and director Nimród Antal set out to do two things. The first was to pay tribute to one of the best action movies of the 80s. The second was to be the only film since the original featuring the titular antagonists to actually be entertaining. It mostly succeeded on both fronts. It's not a great movie, and it honestly handcuffs itself quite a bit by adhering so steadfastly to the story beats set in place by Predator, but it does succeed by combining science fiction, action, and a bit of horror in a similar way. There's nothing terribly original or surprising about the movie, but it has a few likable characters, some brutal and exciting action scenes, and some solid fan service without overdoing it.

There have been comparisons made between Predators and Aliens, both sequels to classic monster movies that up the stakes, which is obviously something they were going for. That's pretty much where the similarities end for me, though. It points to the difference between truly great sequels and merely solidly entertaining ones like this. Anything Predators and Aliens have in common is something that the Predator already did, excepting multiple antagonists. Aliens changed the game by following up a tense, claustrophobic thriller with bombastic large scale action, while Predators just copies Predator with more blood and special effects. It's an approach that works well enough, but it makes any parallels with superior movies seem hollow.

Anyway, the movie itself. It kicks off with a bang as the heroes are forcefully introduced to the wilderness and continues in a fairly wonderful slow burn as they try to figure out where they are and why they were picked. The danger ratchets up slowly, before they eventually discover what they're really up against, and after a slight detour involving a pretty great scene of exposition where everything is laid out by a wonderfully unhinged Laurence Fishburne, it starts to get really violent. I don't think the balls-out violence of the second half is as effective as the slow burn of the first, but I guess I went to see the movie for some Predator violence after all, so I can't complain that much. The mix of characters adds some fun and humor to what could have been a pretty flat script, and Adrien Brody somehow pulls off the gruff loner act without looking like a fool. That was key, because while he's no Dutch, he does manage to keep the movie going as the tough hero, something I wasn't really expecting to see him do quite so well. A lot of the cast is recognizable, including Rodriguez' cousin Danny Trejo as an early victim, Topher Grace as a doctor who doesn't seem to belong, and Walton Goggins from The Shield as a version of his completely trashy persona that's on the wrong side of the law this time.

So anyway, the gang of survivors gets slowly whittled down over time by their hunters, before the telegraphed climactic conclusion where the shirts come off in favor of mud as the humans make their last stand. It's a pretty predictable movie, which is one of the reasons its reliance on reminding you of why Predator was awesome makes for a slightly less impressive final product. Maybe that was necessary though, because the other movies with predators in them tried to take them to difference places or situations and it just didn't work out. It's interesting how the film makes it clear that it's in the same universe as the original, yet completely ignores anything else that may or may not have happened. It seems like a genuine attempt to make the series relevant again after the pandering yet generally terrible crossovers with that other alien series, and I'd be interested in seeing more of what they can do even if the conclusion and ending weren't nearly as strong as the beginning. There were some issues with the foundation of the premise and a few odd directorial choices here and there, but it was mostly a fun time at the movies.