A Few More Films Before I'm Done

Film 385
"Mystery Men"
starring: Ben Stiller, Hank Azaria, Janeane Garofalo, William H. Macy, Kel Mitchell, Paul Reubens, Wes Studi, Greg Kinnear, Geoffrey Rush, Lena Olin, Eddie Izzard, Pras, Artie Lange, Claire Forlani, Tom Waits



I am beginning to think that Ben Stiller is either a terrible actor, a one-trick pony as it would seem, or he deems it necessary to be in terrible movies more often than not, in order for us to appreciate him in a decent movie (which unfortunately doesn't happen often when it comes to Ben Stiller). I've grown tired of his schtick. And "Mystery Men" is just another example of how terrible, undisciplined and messy his comedies can be. Sure, every once in awhile his comedies can generate a laugh or two, but they come very few and far between. I'm also convinced that Ben Stiller thinks he's hilarious and he doesn't seem to care if anyone else thinks he's funny, because he'll still be cashing in the paychecks.

The plot in this disaster of a film involves Captain Amazing (Greg Kinnear) and he is the top ranked superhero in Champion City. It's the kind of world where superheroes are sponsored by companies and in Captain Amazing's case, his sponsors are growing tired of his exploits of recent. In order to drum up some business for himself, and after consulting his publicist (interesting messages in the subtext, sure), Captain Amazing decides it would be in his image's best interest to help his archenemy, Casanova Frankenstein (Geoffrey Rush), from jail. The problem is that Captain Amazing is awfully dumb and Casanova is an evil genius. Captain Amazing is caught by Casanova. That makes an opening for second-string superheroes to try to rescue Amazing and enhance their own reputations. The B team includes The Blue Raja (Hank Azaria), who hurls forks and spoons with amazing strength; Mr. Furious (Ben Stiller), who gets bad when he gets mad, and The Shoveler (William H. Macy), who whacks people with a spade. They're joined by new hopefuls, including The Spleen (Paul Reubens), whose weapon is voluminous flatulence; the Bowler (Janeane Garofolo), whose father's skull is inside her transparent bowling ball; Invisible Boy (Kel Mitchell), whose invisibility has to be taken mostly on trust, since you can't see if he's really there; and The Sphinx (Wes Studi), whose sayings make the Psychic Friends Network look deep. Quite an interesting cast of characters and the actors playing them were definitely at their peek during this time period; and then, there's others who are a bit surprising. 

The film is a mess from start to finish because all the characters are seemingly thrown into elaborate special effects scenes and battles where they get into frenetic human traffic jams, maybe because there's far too many characters in this film. Comedy depends on timing, and unfortunately for this movie, chaos is its enemy, many times. I'm glad I watched it, because now I know I should've avoided it, but you never know until you experience it. 

.....................................................................................
Film 386
"Once Upon a Time in Mexico"
starring: Antonio Banderas, Salma Hayek, Johnny Depp, Mickey Rourke, Eva Mendes, Willem Dafoe, Danny Trejo, Enrique Iglesias, Cheech Marin
written and directed by: Robert Rodriguez



This film is the end of an unbelievably successful trilogy by an underrated filmmaker/storyteller, whom Quentin Tarantino has always had faith in. And I've always liked his films, too.

Robert Rodriguez first made "El Mariachi" in 1992 for an amazing $7,000. Then he made "Desperado" in 1995 for an alarmingly larger budget of $3 million.
Along the way to his larger, more recognizable career, he made "The Faculty" and "From Dusk til Dawn." Then he made another trilogy, this one for kids-- "Spy Kids"-- perhaps because of these 3 films giant success, he was able to make "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" for another crazy, alarming budget of $30 million (which seems rather common these days, in order to make a decent film).

It's an action film where Rodriguez is way more interested in the moment, in having great shots, in surprising the audience with ironic reversals, and always willing to include closeups for sweaty, worried faces. His style is to include bright and bold colors and present sensational kills. It's not necessarily a story that we really care about, with characters that truly matter. His films, like this one, are more a vehicle to show us how great he is at filmmaking and that he learned everything by paying close attention in film school.

Rodriguez is well respected enough as a filmmaker, already at this time, to get such a great cast of actors. With Antonio Banderas, Salma Hayek andJohnny Depp as his leads, and a supporting cast including Ruben Blades,Eva MendesWillem Dafoe and Mickey Rourke, Rodriguez has great faces, bodies, eyes, hair, sneers, snarls and personalities to work with. Banderas is as impassive as Eastwood, Hayek steams with passion, and Johnny Depp steams with something.

The plot is at least technically a sequel to the first two movies, once again with El Mariachi as a troubadour with a sideline in killing (early in the movie, he cocks his guitar). I didn't remember the details of the first two films well enough to follow this continuation in detail, but so what? Essentially, El Mariachi (Banderas) is in self-imposed exile after the death of his wife Carolina (Hayek) and their daughter.
Depp, who is a CIA agent of sorts, tracks him down with the help of a talkative bartender (Cheech Marin). He wants El Mariachi to stop a plot against the president by the drug kingpin Barrillo (Dafoe).
Maybe Rodriguez was a straight-A student in film school. I'm more inclined to think that he just happens to be a natural at this talent, with the ability to tell a story on film with such ease and instinct for what works and what is right for the audience. I love watching his films. Every time I see his films, it makes me wonder if I should have pursued my desire to make/write films and go to an art school.
.................................................................................................
Film 387
"In the Name of the Father"
starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Emma Thompson, Anthony Brophy
directed by: Jim Sheridan



I have to admit, I don't know much about the IRA and/or British forces involvement in Ireland (unwelcomed occupation- hmm, American might know a little something about that, I'm afraid).

The Guildford Four were framed; there seems to be no doubt about that. A feckless young Irishman named Gerry Conlon and three others were charged by the British police with being the IRA terrorists who bombed a pub in Guildford, England, in 1974, and a year later they were convicted and sentenced to life.
But great doubts grew up about their guilt, it was proven that evidence in their favor had been withheld, and in 1989 their convictions were overturned.
"In the Name of the Father" tells this story in angry dramatic detail, showing that the British police were so obsessed with the need to produce the IRA bombers that they seized on flimsy hearsay evidence and then tortured their prisoners to extract confessions. The film is based on Conlon's autobiography, Proved Innocent.

Jim Sheridan is a great storyteller, having changed a few things, in order to better tell the story dramatically. The story becomes a tragedy of errors, with one man, Gerry Conlon, the unfortunate victim of himself at times, but also the victim of prejudice. Gerry Conlon (played by a young Daniel Day-Lewis, who still took to method acting for this role, which has always made him one of the greatest actors of all time) is not a model citizen and some of his transgressions come back to haunt him when it comes to his trial. And then, he is filled with anger and rage against the British men who coerced him and put him in jail. He is also filled with anger towards his father (who actually ends up in jail with him) and his transformation in this relationship is important for the story, as well as the fact that Gerry Conlon is in fact an innocent man and he spends his entire 15 years in prison with a sense that someone will see the truth and he will get his freedom, eventually. He has to.

The movie does a harrowing job of showing how, and why, a man might be made to confess to a bombing he didn't commit. The early sequences of the movie are a Kafkaesque nightmare for Conlon, who finds himself snatched from his bed and locked up for the rest of his life. It's a nightmare for us, too, because Conlon behaves so stupidly, avoiding the obvious things he could say and do to defend himself.
The greater part of the movie takes place in prison, where Conlon and his father (Pete Postlethwaite) are housed in the same cell. His father, a hard-working, honest man, is filled with indignation. Conlon is more filled with self-pity and despair, but gradually, inspired by his father, he begins trying to prove his innocence, and is lucky to convince a stubborn lawyer (Emma Thompson) to take his case. She works for years, and even so might not have made much progress if a police evidence technician hadn't mistakenly given her a report she was never meant to see.
Convinced by the film's documentary detail, we assume all these facts are based on truth, and it is a little surprising to discover that the sadistic British policeman is a composite of several officers, that Conlon and his father were never in the same cell - and that the crucial character of Joe McAndrew (Don Baker), an IRA man who confesses to the Guildford bombings, is a fictional invention. All the same, the main thrust of the story is truthful: British courts found that Conlon and the others were jailed unjustly.
The film's dramatic thrust doesn't simply go from wrong to right, however. It's more the story of how Gerry Conlon changes and grows during those years in prison.In prison, he educates himself and the law educates him; by the time of his release, he is sober, intelligent, radicalized. Seeing this process happen is absorbing, especially since so much of it is inspired by the love of the father for his son.
I loved this film for its intensity and also I couldn't help admire Daniel Day-Lewis for his obvious commitment to such a hard role. This is clearly a man who is in love with what he does for a living and puts his heart and soul into every single one of his performance. There's a good reason he keeps getting recognition over the years, for pretty much every single film he does.

..................................................................................
Film 388
"Quadrophenia"
starring: Phil Daniels, Leslie Ash, Philip Davis, Mark Wingett, Sting, Ray Winstone, Garry Cooper, Gary Shail, Toyah Wilcox
directed by: Franc Roddam
based on the album by: The Who



I love The Who. And here is a movie made in honor of their ambitious rock opera, with the same title. It's definitely not a film for everyone. Movie-lovers might not enjoy it, but rock music-movie lovers will delight in it. The film is set in England in 1964. The characters are Mods and Rockers, warring bands of teenagers who speak with such thick British accents it's hard to understand them most of the time.

The story is derived very, very loosely from an album by the Who. This album was an ambitious undertaking: it described a teen-age boy, Jimmy, who was so acutely sensitive to social pressures that he developed the four-way schizophrenia of the title. Jimmy's condition was illustrated, rather than described, by four separate melodies — one associated with each member of the Who — that eventually merged into one transcendent theme.

Jimmy, played by a wonderfully avid-looking actor named Phil Daniels, is a cheerful, unexceptional fellow, by no means the Who's hypersensitive hero. He is seen squabbling with his parents, partying with his Mod friends, working at a mailroom job that's both dead-end and dull. These episodes, which are carried by the boisterous enthusiasm of an excellent cast, combine to form a slice-of-life movie that feels tremendously authentic in its sentiments as well as its details.

The Mods-and-Rockers aspect of the story might seem to date the material, and as Americans, we might not really relate or understand the struggle, but the story is as concerned with the general experience of adolescence as it is with these particular groups of people. In recreating the seaside riots between these rival gangs the film captures a fierce, dizzying excitement that epitomizes a kind of youthful extreme. Jimmy, who is so electrified by his new identity as a Mod that he makes a quick, thrilling sexual conquest while the fighting is going on, may never again feel so fully at the height of his powers. "Quadrophenia" fills the moment with equal elements of regret and celebration. There's a lot of dissonance and anarchist feeling to Jimmy's character. 

In watching this dated film, I couldn't help but think of a more most attempt at reviving the rock opera when one of my favorite bands wrote and recorded their own version of a punk-rock opera titled "American Idiot" (which is far more relatable as an American and as a boy who was once a teenager with the same feelings). 

...................................................................................................
Film 389
"The Motorcycle Diaries"
starring: Gael Garcia Bernal, Rodrigo De la Serna, Mercedes Moran
directed by: Walter Salles
based on the book written by: Ernesto "Che" Guevara and Alberto Granado



At the risk of sounding political in a film blog: "The Motorcycle Diaries" tells the story of an 8,000 mile trip by motorcycle, raft, truck and foot, from Argentina to Peru, undertaken in 1952 by Ernesto Guevara de la Serna and his friend Alberto Granado. If Ernesto had not later become "Che" Guevara and inspired countless T-shirts, there would be no reason to tell this story. 

Che Guevara makes a convenient folk hero for those who have not looked very closely into his actual philosophy, which was repressive and authoritarian. Like his friend Fidel Castro, he was a right-winger disguised as a communist. He said he loved the people but he did not love their freedom of speech, their freedom to dissent, or their civil liberties. Cuba has turned out more or less as he would have wanted it to.

But all of that is far in the future as Ernesto and Alberto mount their battered old 1939 motorcycle and roar off for a trip around a continent they'll be seeing for the first time. Guevara is a medical student with one year still to go, and Alberto is a biochemist. Neither has ever been out of Argentina. From the alarming number of times their motorcycle turns over, skids out from under them, careens into a ditch or (in one case) broadsides a cow, it would appear neither has ever been on a motorcycle, either.
They begin their journey, stopping at Ernesto's girlfriend's family farm. Chichina (Mia Maestro) loves Ernesto, but is a strong enough woman that she won't wait around for him, as he goes off on this self-discovery journey with his best friend. Perhaps she feels a bit betrayed, perhaps it's all because her father has never approved of Ernesto, but regardless she gives him some money (American dollars) with the hopes of seeing him again. And like most road trip films, along the way, these two best friends face hardships and meet some good people who become friends. There are many examples which I won't dive into because each stop provides a good example and it plays out much better on screen than my words could do justice. 
What is most important is that by the end of their journey, Ernesto has undergone a conversion. He thinks of things differently. "Something has changed in me," he tells his best friend. It should be noted that Che Guervara has become somewhat of a pop culture icon. It's somehow cool to be into him and the fact that he started or was the voice of a revolution, and this film and story suggests that it is because of what he experienced and the people he saw on this journey that changed him. Unfortunately, for the film, we don't really know anything about this two important cultural icons (for South America), other than the fact that they were best friends. Alberto would go on to become a doctor and open a medical school and clinic in Cuba, by the way. 
But, because of what little we truly know about them at this time period, for the film's sake, all we can gather is that they were two young students from middle class families with naive ambitions who decided to take a road trip in order to learn more about themselves and hopefully undergo some significant changes (because otherwise their story would be pointless and much like every other young, college-bound person's life). We've all been there. We've all had this thoughts, too. Myself included. I was lucky enough to be afforded (thanks in large part to my career as a teacher) the chance to take my own road trip, during which I also met some amazing people who've become friends, but most importantly, I was also changed in how I thought about things and how I approached life. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Two Great Films, and more to Pass the Time

Best Albums of 2022

Best Albums of 2020 (The Year that Almost Wasn't, if it Wasn't for Music Saving Us All)