Change Your Image
Elendil87
Reviews
Million Dollar Baby (2004)
a fine new addition to an American tradition in film-making
Since the days of silent film and pioneer filmmakers such as DW Griffith, and the days of the Western and its main contenders like John Ford, and through the time of the gangster films of Raoul Walsh and the like, and until today, there has been a tradition in American film, a tradition of film-making and storytelling that chronicles the great struggle for self-fulfillment and achievement. In "Million Dollar Baby", we have a grand return to this form by Clint Eastwood, one of the quintessentially American filmmakers still working today. "Million Dollar Baby" is by no means a virtuoso film, or innovative in its use of the camera or cutting. Here is a film that sticks to tried and true methods such as continuity cutting, smooth tracking shots, and atmospherically centered and balanced mise-en-scene. The film establishes a true sense of place in the boxing ring, the gym, and the hospital. The camera takes us through the world revealing to us the truth of things rather than telling us the truth of things. The characters play out their interactions thus without stylistic interference. Indeed, Eastwood has mastered the Hollywood style. He has stripped it of all its commercial coverings, and shown us what American film-making is really all about: honesty. A character study of enormous depth that plays out in a tried and true narrative, "Million Dollar Baby" is not a hard nut to crack. It is a film about finding peace with oneself, about the generosity and determination of the human spirit. It is a film about the battles each of us fights but that no one likes to talk about. A great movie, it is about hope and redemption in the end. I was profoundly moved.
Ran (1985)
The Greatest Shakespeare Film
Throughout his career Kurosawa strove to achieve what he called "real cinema", proclaiming that "in all [his] films, there's [only] three or four minutes" of such quality. Many would argue that he was his greatest critic. For if not in "Seven Samurai", then definitely in "Ikiru" and if not in "High and Low", then definitely in "Rashomon" he must have achieved this plateau of greatness. Well, if not in any of his other films, then definitely in "Ran" Kurosawa finally came to the apex of cinematic artistry. With the both lyrical and grandiose tone of its craft, its beautifully spare imagery, its haunting score by Toru Takemitsu, and its lead Tatsuya Nakadai's masterful understated performance, "Ran" is perhaps the most fully realized epic ever made.
The tale, which is an adaptation of Shakespeare's "King Lear", begins as Lord Hidetora Ichimonji and his court are out hunting. During a break in the hunt, Hidetora proclaims his adbication from the hight seat of the Great Lord and bestows his lands unto his three sons, dividing them up equally. He declares his oldest to be his successor in power. When his youngest son and one of his faithful nobles, express their concerns on this idea, Hidetora foolishly banishes them both, mistaking their advice as insolence. With this opening scene, the peaces are aligned and soon 'chaos' as the film is aptly named will break out throughout the land. From here, we see the downfall of Hidetora and all those who surround him. The film retains all the themes of the original play, but also thanks to Kurosawa's own input addresses a slew of even more varied ideas. Like Shakespeare, Kurosawa is greatly interested in the responsibility of the leader and the hypocrisies and ironies of an autocratic system. The most obvious though not the central theme in the whole film is war, and Kurosawa explores this theme to its full extent throughout the film. In perhaps the most grandiose battle scene every filmed, he demonstrates the destructive consequences and the paradoxical beauty of conflict.
Here, Kurosawa implements the camera with masterful skill not once employing the editing/photography tricks and gimmicks so often seen in films (even the good ones) today. This director has an awareness of the past and the history of film, but also the creative spontaneity of a true genius. In "Ran", he focuses on the more methodically simple yet artistically complex montage of Eisenstein, and on the strict compositions of Ozu. He employs the most basic and yet most artistic of techniques. Each shot is planned to precision, and each cut is made for a purpose. The coreagraphy and blocking of each scene is simple and powerful, and Kurosawa allows the actors to play out these scenes without the intrusion of the camera or the editor. Thus, the director prevents the style from eclipsing the already powerful material he has to work with. Simply put, "Ran" is a masterpiece that flows and develops like an opera, from its forebodingly peaceful ouverture to its bloody Shakespearean heart until its final, quietly subdued, and sorrowful denouement.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Great but Flawed...
I have seen "Return of the King" three times now. The first time I saw it was on opening day with a few of my friends. I liked it, but I withheld back real judgement due to bad theater conditions (second row seating and bad sound). Then the following day, the chance came to see it with a few other friends so I did. Overall the theater and the seats were better, yet I was still unable to really state my verdict on the film and its merits. I could already point out things I liked and didn't like, but I couldn't put my finger on the real problem. On my third viewing, I finally came to a decision, although my thoughts on the film will still not be complete until the Extended Edition is released.
To start with, "Return of the King" is my favorite of the books. I also deem it the hardest of the books to convert into a film since it's narrative becomes fragmented into various sub-narratives, which are hard to cut together. This is where, in my estimation the film fails. For for all Jackson and his crew's hard work, the film is not edited well enough to really make it feel cohesive, or for that matter complete. This film does not feel complete. Throughout the movie, there are some incredible moments of cinematic brilliance and some heartbreakingly moving scenes that it really does have the material to be a great if not one of the great epic classics, such as "Lawrence of Arabia". It's level of meaning and depth also support the film in comparison to more artistic endeavors, such as "Ran". The fatal flaw here however does not allow it to achieve its rightful place. Its pacing feels at times off and certain scenes which might be incredibly powerful are underdeveloped. For example, in the scene where Frodo is attacked by Shelob, it is painfully obvious that the scene is too short and much too fast. Tension was lacking and that sense of fear that was so chilling when Gollum first hinted at his plans at the end of the "Two Towers" was lost. Certain scenes as this and times when you wish there was more emotional development here or more action here or more build-up there were missing. Gandalf declares that the Battle of Pelennor Fields will be the "Great Battle of Our Time", yet for lack of build-up before the battle and too little actual footage of the battle shown it feels smaller than Helm's Deep (where the odds are much better and the consequences much less dire). Moments in the battle which are filmed brilliantly such as the Death of the Witch King and the Charge of the Rohirrim feel out of place and anti-climactic because of this lack of battle 'filler', and the despair of the people within the city of Minas Tirith is not as clear as it was as in Helm's Deep. Finally when the heros arrive with a great undead army, there is a sense of anticlimax. So again although each of these individual sequences were wonderful and although what was in the film was magnificent, what was cut our and/or left unfilmed is painfully missed. In short the film could've been much longer. In terms of what was actually in the film, the only real part that felt ridiculous was when the gates of Minas Tirith are broken open and three Trolls storm through. I missed greatly the operatic moment from the books where Gandalf and the Witch King meet face to face. In my opinion, there was simply no need to reinvent the wheel here.
In terms of everything else, this film was superbly crafted. With a much stronger script than the first two and therefore much stronger acting, this one really does close out the trilogy beautifully. Andrew Lesnie's cinematography is now fully developed and full of wonderful imagery and power. And most notable of all, Howard Shore's score has really come to a high point in "Return of the King". The themes now all fully developed and orchestrated feel more full, vibrant and at times truly menacing. In a scene where all these qualities come together perfectly, Gandalf and Frodo say farewell to the hobbits as they sail away into the west from the Grey Havens. In conclusion, everything about this film is bigger and yet more intimate and powerful than the first two. Were it not for the one flaw in the editing, this film really would be one of the greats. Perhaps with the advent of the EE, it will make the distance.
Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is rated PG-13