Movie Update 30

Here are some Alfred Hitchcock movies! And a couple others too I guess!

Blackmail


Alfred Hitchcock's first sound film is a pretty decent one. It features a lot of elements that would become his signatures - normal people in great distress, tension building as the result of bad decisions, dramatic climaxes in famous locations. It also seems remarkably dark for the period, with the plot kicking into full gear as the result of murder to avoid a sexual assault. It still feels like a silent movie in some ways, with many scenes going on for ages with little happening, but Hitchcock shows a lot of ability in not just his first attempt at a sound picture, but one of the first ever.

Chicago


Chicago is a pretty poor choice for Best Picture, not just in its year but probably most. Laughable, even. But it's not a bad movie. I have a feeling the voters wanted to give the award to a musical again, and the most acclaimed one since Cabaret was a decent opportunity. It's actually sort of the opposite of that film stylistically, with most of its musical numbers being fantasies in the protagonist's head rather than regular performances at an actual music club, but that's not really terribly important. The plot is simple and I have no idea why I'm actually supposed to be sympathetic with Renée Zellweger's character, and some of the pieces being a bit simple for the medium of film. But the acting is pretty good and there's an energy to the movie that's enjoyable to watch. Definitely not bad.

Easy Virtue


An even earlier Hitchcock movie, still stuck in the silent era, and unfortunately this one doesn't show a whole lot of skill from the Master. My main problem with the movie is that nothing happens in it. It begins with a woman going through a messy divorce, and then she meets a new man somewhere else, but eventually her past catches up to her. There's nothing really interesting about any of it, the fallout isn't exactly dramatic and the movie doesn't even really seem to care if you're sympathetic or not. All it really seems to be saying is that women shouldn't do inappropriate things if they want to be happy. Which uh... okay?

Foreign Correspondent


Released the same year as Rebecca, Foreign Correspondent isn't as good, but it's still a solid example of what Hitchcock could pretty much do in his sleep. A reporter gets caught up in a web of spying and secrets that could eventually lead to a World War (paralleling the one that was actually happening), but his ability to tell the truth is compromised when he falls for a girl who's a little too close to the conspiracy. It's one of the weaker American films I've seen by him, but I eventually warmed up to it, especially after its surprisingly exciting climax. It's really more comedic than his work tends to be, maybe because Joel McRea is the lead, and it took me some time to adjust, but it's a fine little international caper.

Rumble Fish


Boy, Francis Ford Coppola's post-70s career is hard to get a bead on. It almost seems like he's a different person. A lot like Tetro, Rumble Fish is a black and white film with splashes of color that partially exists to examine the director's own relationship with his older brother. Matt Dillon plays a young punk who looks up to his brother, played by Mickey Rourke, and who has difficulty finding a way to fit in with the world around him. He hangs out with friends at a pool hall, gets into gang fights,  and treats his girlfriend played by Diane Lane like crap. Eventually things start going badly for him, and I can't say I really minded. It's just kind of a weird movie, but some parts worked well enough that I wasn't bored.

The Expendables

The Expendables is kind of weird, because in some ways it delivers on its promise of over-the-top 80s style action with a giant cast of movie veterans, and in some ways it doesn't. I definitely liked it, but I feel that it also could have been much better. The problem is the question of how seriously the movie takes itself. If the movie was straight-up homage to what movies used to be and maybe more tongue-in-cheek, it might have been better. But you get the feeling that Sly Stallone was being completely genuine in his attempt to bring back the glory days, and in that light it's not as successful. I mean, as far as replicating what's come before, he pulled it off. The problem is that those movies were rarely actually very good, and the script at work here is pretty damn weak. It gets made up for a bit by the advancements we've made in filming entertaining violence, but it's certainly a flawed movie.

Sylvester is the leader of a crack team of guns for hire, featuring knife expert Jason Statham, martial arts expert Jet Li, betrayal expert Dolph Lundgren, giant ridiculous automatic shotgun expert Terry Crews, and Randy Couture. Stallone is the only one whose character is really drawn beyond a very brief sketch, and while the rest of them all have what could be described as character traits, they're really just there to help blow things up. Even the second in command Statham is basically playing Action Star Jason Statham, with the only thing trying to avoid this being one of the most pointless subplots ever. Here's what it consists of: Scene 1. He goes home to his girl (played by Cordelia from Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and surprises her with a ring, but he finds out she's seeing another guy. Scene 2: He finds out the guy hits her, so he kicks his and his friends' asses on a basketball court and then drives off with her on his bike. Then she disappears from the movie.

And that's by far the most anybody besides Sly gets to do outside action scenes. Lots of guys get small parts, there's a fun scene where Sly gets a mission from Bruce Willis and has some half-witty repartee with Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Mickey Rourke forgets what movie he's in and acts his ass off delivering a monologue that helps Sly figure out what he has to do. Eric Roberts is an enjoyable smarmy villain, Batista from Dexter is the foreign general whose army is getting taken advantage of, and Stone Cold is menacing enough as the king henchman. So there's a lot of recognizable faces, and they all seem to be having fun kicking each other's asses. The action is surprisingly well choreographed, featuring an entertaining mix of guns, hand to hand beatings, and giant explosions. Unfortunately this is mired a bit by how dark the movie is, especially in the climactic scenes, and a tendency to match the current trend of very quick cuts despite the old pedigree, which occasionally makes the super violence a bit hard to see. So it's an action movie without a good story to prop it up, and the action isn't perfect either. But like I said, I mostly enjoyed it, laughing out loud on numerous occasions while acknowledging that it wasn't actually a very good film. Which is fine, it certainly could have been much worse. Personally, I'm hoping for a sequel with more Dolph, Arnie, and Bruce. And some decent lighting.

Iron Man 2

So, here's the follow up to the best Marvel movie since 2004's Spider-Man 2. And conveniently, a comparison can be drawn between this and that movie's sequel. Iron Man 2 and Spider-Man 3 are both inferior to their predecessors, mainly because they add a few too many new elements to the mix when a less is more attitude probably would have been a good idea. Let's just look at the history of comic book movies, shall we? How many really benefited from having a handful of new villains instead of just a single, strong newcomer? I can't really think of any. All of the great sequels I can think of have one powerful antagonist and that's enough for any movie. I don't feel like Iron Man 2 came out as badly as the last Spider-Man, as I still enjoyed it quite a bit, but it is pretty muddled.

In the first movie, a lot of time was spent on the origin as usual, and after his initial escape from his captors, the only significant factor working against him is a bald, bearded Jeff Bridges. This time, he's dealing with Mickey Rourke's Ivan Vanko, who's a combination of a couple villains from the comics; Sam Rockwell's Jason Hammer, a rival businessman; the government coming down on him and trying to co-opt his technology; and the increasing toxicity of his own blood. Even his buddy James Rhodes is upset with him most of the time. I was skeptical about Don Cheadle taking over the part from Terrence Howard, mostly because I just don't like seeing roles get recast, but he does a pretty darn good job. Most of the cast does, and that along with the solid action is why the movie ended up being enjoyable despite all of the different factors at work. In addition to all of that stuff, he has to deal with S.H.I.E.L.D., who aren't exactly antagonistic but only seem to serve the purpose of helping to set up the Avengers movie down the road and making Scarlett Johansson look as hot as possible. They end up helping in the main plot but if they wanted the movie to be tighter it wouldn't have taken a great effort to take them out.

But yeah, I enjoyed the movie. Director Jon Favreau has a strong comedic background, and it shows in the movie's more humorous scenes that always end up funnier than pretty much any other action movie. I think he gave himself too large of a part in this one, but he knows what he's doing with that stuff at the least. The banter, the way Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow are always talking over each other, Sam Rockwell's delicate balancing act between absurd and menacing, they're all played perfectly. I'd say Downey's performance carried the movie if he really didn't have to, although the whole thing does kind of ride on him remaining sympathetic despite his frequent dickish persona. Rourke's performance is sort of half campy with the accent and everything, but I think he did a good job of presenting an evil face to root against, and his surprising technical knowledge makes him a pretty good counterpart for Stark. There's a lot of cameos and in-jokes sprinkled around, like a funny moment with a certain recognizable piece of equipment, and it's really just a fun movie for most of its length. The action sprinkled around is pretty good, especially by super hero movie standards, and the climax makes up for its own surprising easiness by just being extremely cool. Nothing too shocking or profound going on, but it's the definition of a summer movie.

Characters of the Decade: Part 3

Let's keep this crazy train a-rolling. A couple video game characters break through this time.

Scott Pilgrim
Scott Pilgrim series


"The future? Like... with jetpacks?"

What's great about Scott is how awesome and totally not awesome he is at the same time. I mean, he's mostly an idiot. He's a bit inconsiderate sometimes about others' feelings and doesn't actually talk to girls that well. They like that though, so it works out for him. Just like most things seem to in the wacky version of Canada they all live in. Despite his faults, there's nothing malicious about him. He just wants to have a good time with his girl, and if that means battling seven evil exes to do it, he's up to the challenge. His combination of genuine skill and dimwitted resourcefulness is endearing, and he's well on his way to being the best 24-year-old ever.

John Locke
Terry O'Quinn - Lost


"Don't tell me what I can't do."

Locke is something of an enigma, but part of what makes the show consistently compelling. If there's anyone who likes the show and wasn't totally convinced by the pilot, then the reveal at the end of his first flashback episode is what hooked them for good. He's one of the more frustrating characters on this list, with his motivations and actions frequently in question. But that's par for the course with Lost characters, and Locke is still always among the most interesting. The last season finale really turned what we should be expecting from O'Quinn on its head, and seeing how the rest of his role plays out will be intriguing for sure.

Carl "CJ" Johnson
Young Maylay - Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas


"What can I say? I'm a bad man."

Ever since Grand Theft Auto: Vice City the GTA series has had good protagonists, but so far I've liked CJ the most. One of the good things about him is that your version of him might look nothing at all like the one pictured above. They took out a lot of the customization stuff when they jumped to current gen consoles, but making CJ whatever you wanted him to be was a lot of fun. And he's an interesting, sympathetic person as well, with a really good performance from Young Maylay. There's always a bit of a disconnect when you're doing these action games, with the player guilty of usually hundreds of homicides by the end of the story despite its attempts to make you like them. But if you can just accept it for what it is, they did a really nice job with it.

Alyx Vance
Merle Dandridge - Half-Life series


"Dr. Freeman, I presume?"

There's a difficult balance with Half-Life 2. In the first game, the only characters besides the voiceless protagonist were interchangeable, disposable scientists and security guards. It was very much a game. But with the sequel, they tried to sell you real people that you should be interested in and care about, despite Gordon Freeman's continuing non-functional vocal chords. Alyx was introduced as a frequent companion and possible love interest for Gordon, and despite the odds, it works. Part because of Dandridge's great voice work, and part because of the impressive skill with which the character is written and integrated into the world. There are moments where you wish Gordon wasn't so constricted, but for the most part you forget the limitations and just exist in the game's world with Alyx by your side. Maybe my favorite character in all of gaming.

Dwight Schrute
Rainn Wilson - The Office (US)


"If I were buying my coffin, I would get one with thicker walls so you couldn’t hear the other dead people."

Dwight works in two different ways. The first is bringing a character to the US version that's as suitably nuts as Gareth from the UK show without just copying him, and making him uniquely American. The other, as developing into an actual person over the course of the series' much longer run time. For the most part, Dwight is totally ridiculous. But he has enough scenes that could feature a real human that ingratiate you to him and prevent him from being too over the top. Yeah, right now he has a "diabolical plan" to get Jim fired, but it's all based in genuine desires someone might have. It's a fine line to walk, but I think Wilson and the writers do a good job.

The Doctor
Christopher Eccleston/David Tennant - Doctor Who


"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect... but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly... timey-wimey... stuff."

I generally preferred Tennant's portrayal of the venerable time lord, but Eccleston did a good job too. The Doctor is one of Great Britain's most beloved characters, and his revival a few years ago seemed to go off without a hitch. It's the mix of good humor and pathos that make him work, as he puts on a happy face when dealing with new situations and foes, but it's really just hiding more demons than any soul should bear. He's a bit of an enigma, because you wonder if the moments where the world is weighing on his shoulders are just moments here and there, or a constant hindrance that he only occasionally lets show. Either way, he's usually a lot of fun to watch, and I look forward to seeing what a new actor can do with the character.

Marv
Mickey Rourke - Sin City


"Would you hurry it up? I ain't got all night."

I don't think the movie really held up that well, but Marv is still pretty great. We know Rourke has a lot of range, but I think I like him most as this sort of cocky tough guy with a good heart. He's uncompromising in his ideals and prone to lapses in judgment, leading to his ultimate doom, but hey, that's what prequels are for. His only concerns are loyalty to people who give him a chance and destroying those who go after the ones he likes. And he's pretty damn funny in a morbid sort of way. I've read all of the comics, and his first story is still the best one.

Charlie Kelly
Charlie Day - It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia


"Because I cut the brakes! Wild card, bitches!"

Dennis was definitely my favorite character from the most recent season, but Charlie has been a consistent fan favorite for the show's entire run, and for good reason. He's probably the only cast member you can like as a person, because while they're all idiots, the rest are still functioning idiots who do bad things, while Charlie really is too intellectually stunted to know better. He's sort of like a live action Phillip Fry, somehow able to cobble together a working consciousness despite lacking fundamental mental faculties. He provides most of the show's most over the top moments, and is almost never not up to something funny.

Titus Pullo
Ray Stevenson - Rome


"I was only following orders. Bloody good orders, too!"

In a show filled to the brim with larger than life personalities, Pullo stands the tallest. He's more or less a psychopath, but that's acceptable when you're part of the Roman legion. It's very enjoyable watching him eviscerate an enemy, but he's a lot of fun in a normal life context too, just passing time between battles. Stevenson seems to be building a career out of being violent, but he can do subtle when he needs to, demonstrated admirably in a number of scenes. In fact, my favorite moment with the character was hardly violent at all besides a single murder. Rome thrived off the decadence of its sex and violence, and Pullo was an eager participant in both.

Harry Lockhart
Robert Downey Jr. - Kiss Kiss Bang Bang


"Doesn't that suck? I just hit you for no reason. I don't even know why."

A Scanner Darkly was the first movie I saw Downey in, and I was very impressed with his work there. But this is the film that convinced me I should watch anything he's in. I could almost give the nod to Val Kilmer here because he has so many damn great lines, but Downey's is the better performance and more interesting character. As far as stars of detective stories go, he's among the most flawed, not really knowing what the hell he's doing and ending the case much worse for the wear. His ineptitude is what makes it fun, and his occasional successes make it all worthwhile. He's also probably the worst narrator in film history, and that's another part of why he's great.

Kazuma Kiryu
Takaya Kuroda - Yakuza series


"When you don't pay your debts, I'm what you get."

Other video game characters have more developed personalities or more physical prowess on an objective scale, but none of them are bigger badasses than Kazuma. He's not confrontational by nature, protective of those he knows and willing to discuss things calmly before they get out of hand. But if you insist on violence, he will utterly destroy you with his bare hands. I mean, the guy fights two tigers at once in the second game. His only weakness is an extreme sense of loyalty, which will occasionally get him in situations he can't punch his way out of. But he embodies the sense of respect and honor that makes the Yakuza seem more interesting than the standard mob.

Benjamin Linus
Michael Emerson - Lost


"You guys got any milk?"

I've avoided multiple people from the same thing, but it was too hard here. Ben was only supposed to be around for a couple episodes but he stayed on because the producers liked Emerson so much, and the show hasn't been the same since. One of the most consistently beaten up characters in history (he has to have spent at least half his scenes in bruise makeup, right?), he's still a good villain because of the respect he commands among his allies. Also, because we're never quite sure how much of a villain he really is. He's always creepy and intimidating, but does he maybe have everyone's best interests at heart? We're still not sure yet, but either way he's among the show's most consistently fascinating people.

Continued tomorrow.

The Wrestler

I wasn't sure what to expect from The Wrestler. I've never seen an Aronofsky film before, although people seem to like his work. Almost all of the hype was over Rourke's performance instead of the story, and I was a bit concerned that that's all there would be. It's a really personal film, and so his acting's obviously at the center of it, but I liked the whole movie overall, all aspects considered. I don't usually watch character studies like this, but being forced into it by my brother, I think I ended up enjoying it more than him. The style is interesting. It sort of feels like a documentary, with long shots just following Mickey around and showing what he does with his life. It's not the most brilliant film making I've ever seen, but it seems to do what it wanted, stay out of the way and let Rourke shine. It's not the sort of bombastic tour de force that easily captures my attention, but there's a ton of heart behind it, and he really makes you care about everything that happens.

The film is authentic and unflinching, being (as far as I know) very close to the truth about wrestling, what these people do behind the scenes and how they live. It's not the most seriously taken profession, but they put a lot on the line for not a whole lot in return, hoping to make it big someday, or make it big again in some cases, like Rourke's. He plays a former professional champion who's gotten old and is stuck in a local amateur league, who goes through a bad experience and has to give it up. He still has some good times, but overall leads a pretty unfortunate life. He tries to make things better for himself without it, but can never completely put it all together and fully right the ship. He tries to get closer to his daughter and a stripper he's always liked, played well by Wood and Tomei, although he never quite gets that right either. Eventually, he realizes what he has to do, and the film ends showing exactly what it needs to. Some may be disappointed by it, but I thought it worked perfectly with the story up to that point. It's a simple story, made strong by the simple truth to all of it and the great acting throughout.