Movie Update 28

These are some pretty runty-ass movies! They weren't bad, though.

The Good German

I've only seen two films by Steven Soderbergh, which both happened to be very populist and not terribly original. But he's known as a very experimental filmmaker, at least by Hollywood standards, and even if you don't like The Good German very much, you have to admit it's ambitious. I ended up enjoying its modern day take on lots of old noir tropes, but more interesting than the film itself is the way it is dedicated to the style of the period. It's in black and white, and more than that the way it was filmed is very much the traditional old way, with old cutting and old blocking and everything. It doesn't really actually look like it was made in the 40s, because of the lighting, and because of the weird disconnect with the very modern standards of sex, violence, and language. I don't understand the point of going this far with replicating a look without replicating a tone as well. But you can't say the whole thing isn't interesting. And I think George Clooney and Cate Blanchett make a good pair on-screen, anyway.

The Red Badge of Courage


A war film by John Huston, based on a book about a soldier in the Civil War who fears death and yet yearns to earn his own war wounds and be looked well upon by others. It's an odd movie for a couple of reasons, most notably the incredibly on-the-nose narration, which not only directly quotes the original novel but also addresses the audience in a weird, hitting-you-over-the-head kind of way. It definitely wasn't surprising that this was added by the studio against Huston's wishes, and that they also cut the film down to its scant 70 minute running time, which is hardly enough time to develop themes, especially when so much of that time is just Huston's (admittedly well shot) war scenes. There's the potential for a great 50s war movie in here, but it was lost between filming and release.

Tetro


Francis Ford Coppola's post-70s career is frustrating, showing little evidence that a man who could create a film as perfect as The Godfather still knows what he is doing. Tetro is interesting though, a more personal project than most of his other work, about a couple of estranged brothers who reunite in Spain. It's shown in black and white except for flashbacks, and shows the devastating effect certain actions can have on family ties. It's not exactly the most entertaining movie ever, but there's definitely some stuff going on here that you don't really see in most other movies. It's also really nice to look at, with some stylistic experiments and just really good cinematography throughout. Definitely the best thing I've seen by him that was released in the last 30 years.

Thor: Tales of Asgard


That cover is misleading; it shows a grown up Thor, but the film takes place in his more formative years, before Loki was evil, and before Odin even allowed him to venture out of Asgard. At least they didn't extend the lie far enough to show him holding the hammer. Tales of Asgard isn't much different from the other Marvel movies, being competently animated and telling a pretty standard story, although being Thor, it's less a typical sci-fi action plot and more a typical fantasy one. Thor goes on a journey with Loki, hangs with the warriors three, gets help from Sif, and accidentally gets into some bad shit with the frost giants. As a supplement to the live action film... it's fine. There's nothing terribly exciting about it, but it doesn't really mess up anywhere either. It's a way to pass 70 minutes if you like comic books, I guess.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

So this was a strange movie. The whole thing is practically one long drug trip as Johnny Depp and Benicio del Toro wander around Vegas hallucinating and acting crazy. It's frequently very funny, although just as often merely bizarre. I struggled to find a point to the whole thing, as it's based on a semi-autobiographical book by Hunter S. Thompson and just seems to be a snippet of one of the crazier times in his life. Based on a few old interviews I've seen, Depp's portrayal of the fictionalized version of Thompson was pretty spot on, although with some extra flair on some things like the odd way he walks everywhere while tripping. There's a lot of brief appearances by recognizable people sprinkled around, like Cameron Diaz and Christina Ricci. I got the sense that they enjoyed making the movie, although in practice it's not as fun to watch. I liked a lot of it for the most part, but in general it was just a bit too intensely strange and wandering for my taste. For some reason del Toro's always been a bit of an enigma to me. He plays a lot of interesting parts and does unique things with them, but I rarely think of his performances as truly great or memorable. He gained a lot of weight for this part and has his moments (I love how he couched all his advice with the "as your attorney" bit, even when it had no relevance whatsoever), but in the end I struggled to find a point to his presence. Sort of like the whole movie I guess. I like Terry Gilliam as a guy, but so far I've yet to see his style really make a whole movie work. This was interesting but flawed, and I thought 12 Monkeys was held back a bit. He's allowed to keep trying, though.

Spider-Man 3

Hmm. Spider-Man is my favorite super hero. I used to read some of his comics as a kid. I didn't know what was really going on, since the big story lines were spread over four books every month and I only read one. I still really liked the character though. Spider-Man is easily related to by a lot of people, because he isn't perfect. He starts out as a nerdy kid in high school. He has to deal with normal problems while fighting super villains who want to kill him. His entire career as a crime-fighter started when he made a mistake that led to his uncle's death. He's interesting because of his flaws as much as his ability to do good.

I loved both of the first two movies. I thought they were an excellent combination of story, character, humor, creative action scenes, and awesome special effects. My expectations were high for the third movie, but some things about the previews tempered them a bit. Three villains? The first two movies both did very well with just one. They were interesting because they weren't just pure evil, they had connections with Peter Parker and sympathetic in some ways. I'm fine with Harry succumbing and turning into the second coming of the Green Goblin, even if it seemed a bit soon with so many villains unexplored of yet. Sandman is pretty cool I guess, though I never saw him in a comic. But making him Uncle Ben's killer? What the hell? Part of what made Ben's death interesting and so important to Peter was that it was just a normal criminal that killed him who Peter could have stopped. That shame is what causes Peter to be who he is. The movie handles this situation somewhat satisfactorily, but it's still irritating. Seeing the black suit in the trailer, my thoughts immediately went to Venom. Obviously, you can't bring the symbiote to earth without Venom appearing eventually. My question was whether he would figure prominently in the story, or, as I hoped, merely be all set up for a sequel. It became clear though, eventually, that he would be fully featured as a third enemy. Why bring him into it, when Venom is so popular among fans that he could easily hold an entire movie, and you've already made preparations for Lizard to appear eventually?

It seemed overloaded, and maybe it was. Sam Raimi still does a pretty admirable job of handling all the threads, even if the plot ends up being a bit convoluted because of it. What irked me more than the excess of bad guys was the continued romantic problems Peter faces with Mary Jane. I thought the situation was pretty much set. They were together, she knew who he was, and it seemed all right. Whenever I read the comics, she was always there as a strong character supporting Peter when he struggled. She had her own things to do, but they had a strong relationship and lived happily. After I stopped reading they split up for a while, but since had made up and are happy again. Why over-complicate things when you already have this much stuff to juggle? It's fine for her to have something to do, but more friction is not what the movie needed.

Peter with the black suit was interesting. He gradually becomes more and more of a dick during the movie, but it was played more for laughs than actual story tension. It corrected itself when it needed too, but I thought that pretty much the entire thing could have been better if it was treated more seriously. It's funny to see Tobey Maguire dance like an idiot who thinks he's cool, but is it actually good for the film? No. That aspect of the movie just didn't work for me. Fortunately, the ship is righted in time for the final act. I won't say what happens, but in addition to being pretty damn fun to watch, the final conflict brings together all of the separate elements and concludes almost all of them in a way that eased most of my misgivings and made me appreciate the movie a lot more than I might have otherwise. I guess all's well that ends well. I liked Spider-Man 3, not as much as the first two films, but enough to recommend it to anyone who has any interest. We know there will be more Spider-Man movies, but we don't know who will be directing and starring in them. If Sam, Tobey, and Kirstin come back for the fourth, I'd be happy, as long as they reign it back in a bit. If they don't, then I'll come away from the first trilogy satisfied with what took place and how they handled it.