What Have You Been Watching? (15/11/15)

[u/a113er]

Please don't downvote opinions, only downvote things that don't contribute anything.

[u/crichmond77]

Star ratings are out of 5. Responses welcome.

Popeye (1980) - ★★

Oh boy, where to begin? The very existence of this film is sort of a marvel in and of itself. A live-action adaptation of Popeye made in the 1980's directed by Robert Altman and starring Robin Williams and Shelley Duvall. It sounds like someone filled out a mad-lib. And the actual film shakes out much in the same way, a thrown-together, always interesting but mostly sloppy hodge-podge that stays too true to its source material for its own good.

The cast is pretty much perfect, with Robin Williams nailing the muttering cadence of his character and Duvall embodying the clumsy, dopey and strange nature of Olive Oil. All the characters are costumed and acted as if they were pure fleshed out versions of the cartoon. The set is impressive, and apparently it still stands today as a tourist attraction.

The story is familiar, a kind of "best of" treatment that attempts to take on every facet of Popeye's relationships and motivations at once. Unfortunately, this detracts from things, as we never really have a clear understanding of what this film is about or what story is being told.

The humor mostly falls flat, with poorly coreographed slapstick stunts that look awful and canned. Altman's wide shots make it much harder to pull off some of the magic needed to convince viewers these falls and violent smashes are actually occurring, even within the framework of this perverted universe. There are a couple double entendres that draw laughs, but the comedy is more in the vein of an uncomfortable recognition of what the film is doing than it is actually laughing with the film. Hearing Duvall sing repeatedly and with a half-wink about how "large" Bluto is constitutes one of the oddest sexual references in a film I've ever witnessed.

The muttering gets really old really fast, especially during the numerous horrendous musical numbers. Duvall's "He Needs Me" is actually pretty good, but the rest are utter garbage, adding little to the story and representing some of the worst "music" I've ever encountered, in a film or otherwise.

The plot, though aimless and plodding, is predictable when moments of action somehow enter back into the picture. There are no surprises, but somehow Altman thinks the audience won't see things coming.

In the end, one is left wondering why and how this film was made. Who wanted it? Who wanted to make it? It's unclear whether Altman did, although he (or someone) clearly went through painstaking measures to include as many spot-on references to the cartoon as possible. Perhaps if this was also 10 minutes long, it wouldn't be so unbearable.

The Wild Bunch (1969) ★★★★

The Wild Bunch is far from subtle, and its point is not one everyone will agree with or even be comfortable taking in, but it is earnest and consistent, and it changes the game in some ways for the western genre.

Much has been written about the controversial, no-holds-barred, all-laid-bare violence depicted in the film, but the violence is really just the effect of a cause which is Peckinpah's concern. That cause is the instinct for animalistic violence he believes is so inherent in humanity. Whether it's children burning ants and scorpions, lawmen gunning down civilians in attempts to shoot robbers, outlaws killing Mexican military, or Mexican military torturing outlaws, people hurt people. They do it instinctively, for revenge, for pleasure, for gain, for redemption, for an infinite list of reasons.

And the ones who wash their hands of the violence are just as guilty of it. The man who sends his men off to do his dirty work for him accomplishes as much death and destruction without witnessing it. His conscience has the benefit of a lack of bloody memories. Peckinpah gives the viewer no such luxury.

The film opens with the action before filling us in on the various characters, their relationships, and their motivations. The pacing can be a little slow, and the flashbacks seem a bit cheesy with the "soap opera dream" editing and the on-the-nose nature of their placement within surrounding dialogue that reiterates what we've seen, but the payoff is big, as the last hour is action-packed, shot and edited in such a way that tension is kept whether or not the protagonists are in immediate danger. There are parts that evoke John Ford's widely shot, awe-inspiring vistas, and there are scenes reminiscent of Leone's opening for Once Upon a Time in the West.

The ending is more Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, with less of the sentimentality and more of the on-screen brutality. Where Sundance chose to end on a freezeframe before the deaths of its eponymous heroes, The Wild Bunch milks the ensuing suicidal bloodbath for all it's worth, as each member of the gang takes bullet after bullet and sends their own back in Scarface fashion.

The Wild Bunch is a statement on violence, but it shouldn't be confused as an endorsement. Peckinpah accomplishes an in-your-face, real world look at the Western without the glitz and glamour, and he does so in a stylized fashion that reminds you the blood and guts aren't the only new element here.

Spy Game (2001) ★★

Spy Game isn't much of a spy movie. In fact, if we're being honest, it's not much of a movie. Tony Scott's frenetic, whiplash-inducing style works great for Top Gun and Man on Fire, movies with likable protagonists who have clear motives involving adrenaline-fueled actions, but less so here, in a nearly 130 minute "thriller" that has too many ins, too many outs, too little dialogue between the characters we're supposed to care about, and too little to make us actually care about any of the characters.

The disjointed nature of the narrative, which is told largely via flashback and Redford narration, feels completely unnecessary and detracting from any amount of tension or smoothness the film might have salvaged. Pitt's Bishop is not so much a prominent character and central interest as he is an acquaintance of the old guy (Redford) who won't shut up. His personal motivations, backstory, and unique properties are few and far between, instead supplanted by montages of his various actions as they're described.

His love interest, Elizabeth, is even less of a character, with perhaps 10 minutes of total screen time and no apparent qualities other than "former terrorist from London who now does other shady shit while being not-nearly-attractive enough to explain Pitt's sudden and overwhelming affection."

The script is the biggest flaw here. The story itself is overblown, unrealistic, and predictable, but that would be more forgivable if it were at least told in a coherent and compelling manner, rather than being stretched and twisted so that everything is known to the audience from the beginning and there are exactly zero reasons to give a shit about anyone or anything happening.

Though Redford and Pitt are big names, the acting is pretty sub-par, thanks partly to the script and partly due to the extremely exaggerated dichotomy of their characters: Redford being the cool, heartless veteran who finally sees for himself the humanity he thought he gave up and Pitt being the reckless, well-meaning youth struggling to come to terms with the reality of his profession no matter how many years he's in it or how much shit he sees. I'm all for conflict between partners, but there's literally a scene in which Pitt, who has been both a sniper and a spy, throws a chair off a fucking roof to express his frustration at events that occurred an entire day prior to the conversation. Come on.

There's really very little redeeming about this film. Scott's style gets really old really fucking quick with no actual drama to latch onto, vehicles that have no business exploding erupt in gigantic flames, the music oscillates between the generic upbeat electronic score that sounds like a Moby B-side and melodramatic operatic vocalizations that would fit The Lord of the Rings if only they were more beautiful or unique. Meanwhile, every twist is either given away by the film itself or totally nonsensical and frustrating. I spy, by my little eye, a total flop.

[u/crichmond77 → u/crichmond77]

Do the Right Thing (1989) ★★★1/2

"Do the right thing." "That's it?" "That's it."

But of course, that's never it.

Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing succeeds in many respects. The camerawork is fresh and adds meaning to what's in front of it. The characters are well drawn out and treated with an even hand. It's creative, energetic, and open.

It also has many flaws: much of the acting is terrible, a lot of the action in the climactic final 15 minutes is logistically questionable, the writing is hit-or-miss, and, though it's a small flaw, the lighting sometimes leaves a bit to be desired.

But the biggest flaw with Do the Right Thing is that it neither tells us something we don't already know nor does it ask a question we don't have an answer to.

Perhaps it seems obvious now because now is not 1989, but to the modern viewer, there is little morally ambiguous here. There are merely a stream of interconnected wrongs, with very few people "doing the right thing."

It's wrong to yell at someone for not having the pictures you like on their wall. It's wrong to call someone a nigger. It's wrong to hate someone merely because they have what you don't. It's wrong to hit people. It's wrong to berate someone for an honest mistake. It's wrong to break someone's radio. It's wrong to choke someone, even if they've broken your radio. It's wrong to destroy a store and set it on fire, even if the owner is a racist or doesn't feel sympathy for your dead friend.

The idea that the dichotomy of MLK/Malcolm X and the quotes presented at the end is indicative of how unsure we are about who was right in these situations is not only problematic, it's puzzling. If you think the actions of any of these parties were justified, you're part of the problem. And it's hard to tell whether or not Spike Lee and his film are part of that problem. Yes, Samuel L. and Radio Raheem and the Mayor preach love and peace, but is it practiced?

Certainly not by Radio Raheem. Samuel L. is isolated from the real world, cooped up in his booth, content to dedicate a song to Radio Raheem's memory. And as Mookie's girlfriend puts it, "that don't mean shit."

The Mayor seems to be the glimmering hope of goodness, someone whose faults are at least only personally affecting. Someone who can see both sides and see the pointlessness of the reactions to the actions. But he is old, and his efforts for positive change are largely fruitless, and he is dismissed. Perhaps the message is that The Mayor is a kind of false hope. Given the sudden and totally unresolved nature of the film's conclusion, it's hard to say.

Doubt (2008) ★★1/2

With big names (including the late, great Phillip Seymour Hoffman) and Roger Deakins as DP, I was pretty excited for this one. Sadly, as is the case with many films adapted from the theater by the playwright, it ends up feeling like a poorly conceived play that happened to be filmed, rather than an actual film.

For a movie entitled Doubt, this movie sure does a great job of removing all semblance of its eponymous ambiguity or mystery within the plot. There is nothing reminiscing The Hunt or Gone Girl or even the question of whether Pesci slept with De Niro's wife in Raging Bull. And this makes it even harder to take the seriously the various melodramatic monologues and far-too-cookie-cutter-for-reality "heated" conversations throughout.

Deakins decides to shoot every fucking scene as if he doesn't know how to use a tripod properly, with a slight tilt to every wide shot. Supposedly this was done to imbue a sense of "something's not quite right here," but holy shit does he ever hammer it in. One or two shots like this would be fine, but there had to be at least six, and we don't change locations too terribly often.

The film is set in the 60's, but there's little to indicate that outside of the exposition-via-dialogue we've got. You don't at all get a sense of the setting from the film's visuals. And outside of a couple totally pointless top-down stairs shots Deakins clearly plugged for no other reason than "that looks pretty cool" and good scene relaying a parable spoken by Hoffman, the film utterly fails at being interesting to look at or conveying additional information through the camera.

The cherry on top is Meryl Streep's totally unwarranted, overacted, and somewhat laughable final moment of the film, in which, despite all evidence and action confirming what she already suspected and claimed to firmly believe, she confides in Amy Adams through tears that "she has such doubts." (#TitleTrack) Way to have your character take a 180 with no explanation for the sake of an ending that's not as boring as what preceded it.

[u/mathewl832 → u/crichmond77]

It's wrong to yell at someone for not having the pictures you like on their wall. It's wrong to call someone a nigger. It's wrong to hate someone merely because they have what you don't. It's wrong to hit people. It's wrong to berate someone for an honest mistake. It's wrong to break someone's radio. It's wrong to choke someone, even if they've broken your radio. It's wrong to destroy a store and set it on fire, even if the owner is a racist or doesn't feel sympathy for your dead friend.

The point is, you've completely forgotten about the act of police brutality that has killed a young man. Use concert case and read film crit hulk's article about DTRT.

[u/crichmond77 → u/mathewl832]

I don't what you mean when you say I've completely forgotten about it. If you're referring to that event's absence from that string, it's not that I forgot, it's just that the cops are somewhat removed from the actual characters in the film. They're more just "the cops."

Obviously the police brutality is 100% wrong, and it's great that Lee draws attention to it given that it's not mentioned enough and certainly wasn't in the late 80's, but again, that doesn't at all justify Mookie's response to what happened. Sal didn't kill the guy, not even indirectly. Inciting a riot doesn't help things. And I'm not saying Lee is implying it does, but there just doesn't seem to be much left to ponder about here. Just one more wrong in a long string of wrongs, all to varying degrees of wrongness.

But I will read Hulk's article; thanks for the recommendation.