Change Your Image
wspears49
Reviews
The Barkleys of Broadway (1949)
Astaire and Rogers--MGM style
I had the sense watching this movie that Fred and Ginger were shoe-horned into MGM's style of musicals, rather than having the movie tailored to the couple's winning style.
In one of the dance numbers, Fred and Ginger actually get lost for a while in the crowd of other dancers around them. That never would have happened in the RKO pictures. In general, the dance numbers were too "busy" for the graceful elegance of Fred and Ginger. That "busy" quality was part of MGM's style, and it often worked in their musicals, but with Fred and Ginger, less would have been more.
The music itself is mostly forgettable, but then that was the case in a lot of Fred and Ginger's numbers--but their dancing overcame the weak material.
In Barkely's of Broadway, Fred and Ginger have two memorable dance numbers (one of them being a repeat of one of their earlier hits, They Can't Take That Away From Me. And Fred has a memorable solo dance number to the song Shoes With Wings On.
The plot itself was intriguing. A couple (married) break up the musical act because the woman wants to pursue a dramatic career. This is what happened, to some degree, in real life between Fred and Ginger (with Ginger actually winning a Best Actress Oscar for Kitty Foyle in 1940).
It is interesting that Judy Garland was poised to play role of the wife, until she became ill (which is when Ginger got the part in Barkleys). I think that it is probably true that it would have been a different and better movie if Judy had been in it. But it never would have been a great movie musical--the songs, and the dialogue were both too mediocre.
The fascinating thing about the movie, is that while Fred had been making dance movies non-stop since Ginger and Fred had parted, Ginger Rogers had not.
So far as I can tell from Ginger's film biography, she did her last dance musical in 1946, and only one or two dance films previous to that--and Ginger's last film with Fred was 10 years earlier in 1939. And yet Ginger appeared as natural and magical a partner for Fred as she always had.
My only complaint about Ginger Rogers in The Barkleys of Broadway, is her wardrobe. She was still a beautiful woman. Much of the charm of the earlier Astaire/Rogers movies, was Ginger's clothes and the style in which she wore them. Through much of this movie, Ginger Rogers is dressed in frumpy clothes, or layered suits, that hide her still beautiful figure.
Crash (2004)
A Noble Effort
The best thing about Crash is that it gets people talking about racism and bigotry after the movie is over. The subject matter itself would do that, but I think that Haggis does two things to ensure that people talk about bigotry afterwords.
First, Haggis creates characters that are stereotypes, in the worst sense of the word. They are meant to infuriate the audience. Most of the people in this movie have very little nuance or subtlety to their character. This is deliberate, on the director's part.
Second, the first hour of this movie is relentless in its depiction of bigotry. With each new scene, the audience braces itself for another round of racist caricature and vile epithets being spewed by the characters.
My problems with the movie are two.
First, I think that Haggis has too many story lines going, he needed to lop off about two of them--in order to explore the other stories in more depth, and to resolve the remaining story lines more satisfactorily.
My own feeling is that the story line specifically revolving around the white district attorney, played by Brendan Fraser, could have been eliminated (although I do think that, at least the early part of the story of Sandra Bullock, Brendan's wife, was important to keep in the film). I also think that the story line revolving around the Chinese businessman and the slave trade should have been removed.
There are simply too many holes and questions left unanswered by the end of the movie, for it to be considered an excellent movie, in my opinion.
Second, while I understand what I think that Haggis was trying to do with the first hour of non-stop bigotry, I don't think it ultimately works. Haggis needed to rework the structure, so that the viewer got some relief and resolution early in the film to some of the film situations--and so that other problem situations could be introduced later in the movie.
The way the film was structured, the audience becomes somewhat numb by the end of the first hour--from all the tension created by the racist hate being thrown at the viewer. The audience then gets the sense that it can relax a bit, in last hour, as it is mainly a resolution to the conflicts from the first hour--this makes the audience somewhat lazy, I think.
Haggis would have made a better film if he had mixed things up a bit more structurally, so that the audience was constantly on its toes, not knowing whether to expect tension or relief.
My favorite story lines, were the ones revolving around Matt Dillon and Thandie Newton (and her husband, whose face is new to me--so I don't know his name, but he was very good in his role). And the plot revolving around the Hispanic locksmith, his daughter, and the Iranian shopkeeper was also a favorite story line of mine--although I have to admit that some of that story didn't make much sense. It wasn't the daughter's magic cloak that was non-logical, that was perfectly fine. It was the Iranian's attitude toward the Hispanic that didn't make any sense to me, and rang false. But I still found the story line compelling and emotional.
Be Cool (2005)
Unfortunately, one of the worst movies of the year
Certainly there were worse movies to come out in 2005 than Be Cool, but considering what they had to work with (the successful teaming of John Travolta and writer Elmore Leonard from the first film, Get Shorty) this movie is an extreme disappointment.
John Travolta was fine, reprising the role of Chili Palmer--he is still the poster man for "Cool". Uma Thurman, while her part was woefully underwritten, was also interesting--she is an alluring presence on the screen. But after that, one of the problems with the movie starts to become visible: the rest of the characters were either uninteresting or offensive.
Many people have commented on The Rock's role as the gay bodyguard. He is definitely an offensive character to watch, (although I don't think that the Rock himself deserves any blame--it is the way the character was written that was the problem). But I found Andre' Benjamin's character of Dabu, Cedric the Entertainer's main gun-wielding henchman, to be just about as offensive and The Rock. Other characters, like Harvey Keitel as the corrupt record producer, and Vince Vaughn as his partner/gopher were more boring and annoying, than offensive.
In general the movie had too many characters with too many story lines that went in too many directions for the audience to keep track of or eventually care about. This led to the movie being overlong.
A number of commenter here have mentioned the blatant product placement going on in Be Cool. What bothered me more, was that Be Cool kept referencing back to earlier scenes from Get Shorty. It started with Chili picking up his rental car: in Be Cool it was the "Cadillac of hybrid cars", in Get Shorty Chili's rental was the "Cadillac of mini-vans". This self referencing to Get Shorty continued throughout the movie, and the only effect it had on me was to continually remind me of the better scenes that were in the original.
The main plot itself, revolving around a young black girl trying to get a record produced, and Chili helping her deal with the scum and the parasites along the way, was interesting and had possibilities. But that was only one of about 4 plot lines running throughout the story, and the director never stayed on one plot long enough to engage the audience.
Regrettably, this is only a 2 star movie.
Sin City (2005)
Interesting but repetitive
Unlike many reviewers, I have never read any of Frank Miller's graphic novels--so I can't comment on the authentic look of the film. I can say that the film is visually stunning, particularly given that so much of what you see is digitally created. It is truly a work of art to behold.
I can also say that the characters are all uniformly interesting to watch. Not just the characters made up prosthetically, like Micky Rourke as Marv, or Elijah Wood as Kevin. Every major actor is playing a singularly interesting character, and the interaction between those characters is compelling to watch, just as compelling as the visuals.
But for me, the problem is that, both the characters and the look of the film, are at the service of essentially the same story, told three separate times.
Possible mild spoilers.
The stories are all about cruelty and retribution, with some form of redemption at the end. Each story plays out like an Old Testament tale, which is alright for the first hour or so. But after a while, all the over-the-top violence and histrionics begin to wear you down. By the second hour, the movie has become predictable, and that's as deadly, in a movie, as any shot through the head.
Critics keep referring to Sin City as a return to Film Noir.
But great film noir, like Out of the Past and The Big Sleep, have a lot of elements to it besides violence. Sex, for instance. With femme fatales, who the antihero and the audience don't know if they can trust--and that creates suspense.
There are numerous women in Sin City--in fact women are the catalyst for each of the stories. But there's not much suspense surrounding who these women are, and what they might be up to. And except for the prostitute gang, the women we meet in Sin City are all ladies in distress--hardly what I expected to find going in to the film.
In the end, the only suspense in Sin City is what new and bloody way someone can get his head bashed in.
I would certainly recommend seeing Sin City. It is dazzling to look at, even more so than Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. I just wish that the story telling had kept up with the visual look of the film and the character creation.
Twentieth Century (1934)
Good Hawks, but not Great
Howard Hawks is probably my favorite Hollywood director. He made genuine classics in virtually every film genre, except perhaps Horror.
I had never seen Twentieth Century until its release on DVD recently. It is a good movie, funny, and entertaining. But, IMHO, it falls short of being one of his Greats.
The problem, for me, is that Twentieth Century never changes its tone throughout the whole movie. It starts with people shouting at one another, and acting hysterical, and it carries that through until the end.
In structure, Twentieth Century is similar to His Girl Friday, the screwball comedy Hawks directed six years later, (and a superior film). That is similar is not surprising for two reasons. First, because the Hollywood/Broadway writer Charles MacArthur was involved in both projects. And Second, because Hawks, in his career, was noted for often going back to basic story lines and remaking pictures.
Both movies revolve around a woman involved with and fighting with her former boss/lover. In both stories, the plot revolves around the ex-boss trying to get the woman back, both on the job and in his life. In the case of Twentieth Century, the ex-boss and woman, are played by John Barrymore and Carole Lombard. In His Girl Friday, the parts are played by Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell.
Twentieth Century is definitely John Barrymore's picture, and he is wonderful in it. Those of us from later generations, have mostly only heard of John Barrymore. It is a real treat to watch him. Barrymore's character is overwrought and overacts shamelessly, but it is totally in keeping with his character. At one point, in one of Barrymore's endless tirades, almost in mid-sentence, he begins imitating a camel chewing. It is a startling moment, that goes by almost as fast as it appeared, but it is a brilliant piece of comedic acting. There are very few actors, either then or now, who have the creativity or the versatility to pull off a scene like that, and make it seem totally in character.
(Possible Spoiler) This was, I believe, Carole Lombard's first major role, and she does very well keeping up with Barrymore, shout for shout, and eccentricity for eccentricity. She is not quite his equal, particularly at the end of the film, (which I found a little bit disappointing) but she comes close.
Like all good and great screwball comedies, Twentieth Century has great dialogue to go along with the zaniness. And both Barrymore and Lombard do a great job delivering that dialogue.
So, it is well worth watching Twentieth Century. It just seems that, in his later films, comedies and otherwise, Howard Hawks was better able to build tension to a crescendo. Here, too much of the movie is all crescendo, and by the end, it may wear you out.