More Films During this Rainathon
Film 183
"Raising Arizona"
starring: Nicholas Cage and Holly hunter
written by: Coen Brothers
directed by: Joel Coen
I wanted to like "Raising Arizona." I really did. And a part of me did enjoy it...for what it was, a very early film (from 1987) in the Coen Brothers filmography. The two have always worked as a pair, but for their early films Joel took Director credits and Ethan took Producer credits. It's safe to say they both work on the writing piece of their scripts. I could not hop on board with the way that Nicholas Cage's character, H.I., spoke- not only through his narration of the film, which sounds and feels like he's actually reading from an old, classic literary novel, as a way to perhaps make him more identifiable and relatable. He's not and this doesn't help. He's an ex-convict, who with the first 20 minutes of the film is in and out of jail 3 times for the same crimes (re: robbery). Apparently this is way before the 3-strike rule, because logically shouldn't he be spending a more significant amount of time in jail for his crimes? Or maybe it's because he's a white dude in the Southern Bible belt. He just sounds ridiculous as a person. And since my struggle, throughout my own personal writing career, has been making my characters sound believable, like real people, it's interesting that I am able to pick up in films when characters seem to unreal. And it's not just Cage's character, all the characters in this Coen Brothers' world speak in a ridiculous way. It comes off as being very artificial, and that is a turn off, for me. It's also distracting, when you are trying to get into a film.
It's actually a brief film, for a Coen Brothers' film, but it just seems to drag on because of the subplots and the dialogue and how these characters speak, when they have to converse with each other. It made the film seems extremely long, longer than it actually was.
And then, there's the whole plot. But, before I get into it, I totally understand that some films are designed to be an escape from reality and can therefore defy any sense of logic, but come on, to a degree. Right? Is it supposed to be a real world comedy-drama found inside the trailer park side of life or is it supposed to be more of a fantasy? It's hard to figure out as you are watching everything unfold, because they spend time in reality and then very quickly jump to a fantasy sequence, that distracts the viewer.
Basically Cage's H.I. is an ex-convict and Holly Hunter is an ex-cop. They find each other in passing while H.I. is in and out of jail. They end up married, but unable to have children. They get the idea to kidnap one of the five kids that a furniture salesman has with his wife. They succeed and are then on the run to start their own family. Meanwhile, they are being pursued by several people interested in the $25,000 reward that comes with returning the kid to his parents. The subplots of these people (a couple of ex-cons, one played by John Goodman) and also a guardian, superhero-like Hell's Angel biker dude who roars his bike through towns attempting to track down this fugitive couple and return the baby to his parents is far from ridiculous and comes off as simply pointless. Neither story really pushes the story further, in fact, they act as derailments for the story.
It's too far from reality and takes itself all over the map that it ended up being a disappointment for me. Instead, I'll stick with the more recent films in the Coen Brothers' filmography because it seems like over the years they've at least been able to figure themselves out as far as what they want to do with a film as it is intended for its audience. This one is a lost cause.
......................................................
Film 184
"The Game"
starring: Michael Douglas and Sean Penn
directed by: David Fincher
The Game is either the worst birthday present for (someone who is a control freak like) Michael Douglas' character, Nicholas Van Orton, or the best birthday present ever.
Douglas plays Van Orton who is a very wealthy/rich businessman who happens to also be in obsessive control of every single aspect of his life. This fact also makes him one of the saddest guys you feel sorry for because he is so obviously lonely, but yet won't do anything to change that. He is even mostly estranged from his brother, Conrad (played by Sean Penn, who is in and out of the film rather soon, until he shows up at the end, again). Conrad appears to offer his brother a peace offering that doubles as a birthday present. It's called "The Game" and it is run and operated by a company called Consumer Recreation Services. There are never any specified rules or objectives to "The Game" other than what Conrad tells his brother. You call them, they take care of everything. You won't even know that they are involved in your life. "It will make your life fun again." This is assuming Nicholas doesn't think his life is fun anymore. That's what makes it so intriguing. Now, why Nicholas decides to call them is a mystery, because it goes against everything he has believed in order to run his life. But, nonetheless, he calls and shit starts to happen to him. The kind of stuff that would have never happened to him before, because he was so in control of his life. So, I guess "The Game" is that you're not in control anymore- unless they want you to think you are. And who are "they." Nicholas becomes suspicious of everyone in his life, especially the new people that have shown up.
Soon everything starts to fall apart. His pen leaks. His briefcase won't open. Wine is spilled on him in a restaurant. He is trapped in an elevator. The level of chaos rises. He finds himself blackmailed, his bank accounts are emptied, he wanders like a homeless man, he is trapped inside a cab sinking in a bay, he is left for dead in Mexico.
Michael Douglas, as portrayed in the other films that I've watched for his project, is a master at playing wealthy and powerful men. Here, though, he is reduced to a stumbling and desperate man on the run from his own life, because he has simply given in to temptation of "making his life fun again" and instead he believes his entire life is unraveling right before his eyes and he wants to stop it, but can't.
I have always been a big fan of David Fincher, ever since I saw "Se7en," so I may be a little bias, but I think he is a master of the thriller genre. He knows what to reveal, how much of the secrets to reveal and when to reveal them, so as to make you think you have it figured out, as a viewer, and then he sort of pulls the carpet from beneath you or twists the knife a little further. David Fincher is great about avoiding movie and script cliches, as well as allowing his stories to remain unpredictable.
I had seen bits and pieces of this film a few years ago, I believe, because it was on television or some movie channel. I think I missed that it was a Fincher film, because had I known back then, I probably would've tried to appreciate more. I certainly enjoyed it this time around and I appreciate the way Fincher slowly develops his story, with just enough action her and there to make you question and think about what you are seeing, as well as adding the aspect of paranoia that Van Orton is feeling, that he doesn't trust anyone anymore. Here, you are wondering if "The Game" is really happening or if Van Orton is just simply learning a lesson: one of humility and humanity.
"The Game" is a great movie for all the right reasons: a wonderful director that knows how to craft a story, with a dark and ominous setting, Michael Douglas is stellar as a guy who has it all and quickly loses everything, as well as his own self-confidence and composure. Does he learn a lesson? Watch it to find out.
..............................................................
Film 185
"Surviving Crooked Lake"
starring: 4 teenage girls
Unfortunately, this is a film that is ultimately a complete and utter waste of time. I don't know how or why it was even greenlit, because there seems to be an abundance of "survival" type movies already out there and this one does nothing to expand the genre. I feel bad for the 4 teenage girls that obviously gave their all as far as their performances go, but it's just a failure right out of the gate, because the writing is subpar. There's really no plot other than: 4 girls and an older brother take a couple of canoes out to an island, there's the suggestion of the want of sexual activity between one of the girls and the brother which leads to chase through the woods, the brother ends up dying in a freak, completely unbelievable accident with a tree, and then the 4 girls are left to find their way back and off the island without their guide- whom they have in tow with them, in a sleeping bag, because his 14 year old sister didn't want to leave him behind. There's some tension among the 4 girls and 3 of them end up leaving the sister alone withe her dead brother.
That's a sort of heavy plot that the director and writers choose to handle lightly, although they use many close-ups to try to convey emotions. These are 14 year old girls, though, who probably haven't had any formal acting training. In fact, the entire film kind of plays out like a group of friends decided to spend a weekend filming the entire thing. There is absolutely no character development and the story just plays out like a day-in-the-life-of these 4 girls. We don't know anything about them before this trip and we don't really get to know them at all during their tension. It could have been so much more, because I remember being a 14 year old boy, and teenage girls are really confusing. The filmmakers could have really had something if they'd decided to dive into the psyche of these 4 girls and made it more about their survival amongst each other. Almost like a "Lod of the Flies" situation, I guess. Now, that would have been interesting. I would have watched that with enthusiasm. This film didn't really grab my attention at all, other than the cinematography, which was really the only redeeming quality because its gradual change- from the beginning and being sunny and bright which allowed for the happy, summery vibe and as the tension built up the scenery changed to become more ominous feel of "what will happen to them?"
Don't waste your time, like I did.
.............................................................
Film 186
"The Heat"
starring: Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy
I'm not going to lie, there was a big part of me that thoroughly enjoyed "The Heat," and it wasn't the teenage boy crush I used to have on Sandra Bullock (oh, yes, remember her days in "Speed" and "The Net?"). Although, it is a typical, formulaic buddy-cop movie, filled with cliches (the foul-mouthed, do-it-my-way black sheep cop and the overly cautious, rule-following, and snobby FBI agent team up together; and let's not forget the music-laden movie montage where they become close and share too many drinks; as well as a predictable plot, lots of foul language, things blowing up and a drug-related villain), it is a great comedy that will definitely have you laughing along with the ridiculousness that ensues right from the beginning.
I love Sandra Bullock, even though I think she's been typecast as the girl-turned-woman-next-door/nice girl in far too many of her films. It was great to see her unleash some foul language towards the end, but it's almost like hearing your mom (you gorgeous, hot mom that all the boys have a crush on) swearing. Bullock plays Ashburn (last name), an FBI agent who is brilliant, by the book, and hated by her colleagues for the way she lets everyone know who brilliant and great at her job she is. And Melissa McCarthy has certainly shown herself to be a not-so-hidden comedic genius, unfortunately, a lot of her comedy has come from the foul language or gross-out department (re: "Bridesmaids" and the shitting in the sink scene). Nothing's changed for her hear, except that now her character garners some sympathy fro the audience, as well as Bullock's FBI agent character. She's got some heart. She's got some feelings, and goddamnit if she's not afraid to let anyone know. You sort of feel bad for both ladies. They're from different situations, but they belong together, as a crime solving unit, and hell, even as friends, by the end of the film. McCarthy's Mullins (last name) is a Boston detective that does things the way she wants and doesn't give two shits about who or how it affects people. She speaks her mind, often quite vulgarly. She is quite slovenly. And she has violent tendencies. "I will hit you with a book 57,000 times," she tells Ashburn upon first meeting her in an interrogation room.
The film is basically about these two mismatched officers of the law trying to bring down a Boston drug lord. They each have their own reasons for pursuing the case. Ashburn wants the coveted promotion she so desires. Mullins wants to make sure her brother can survive out of the drug game and straighten himself out. The film is actually pretty violent- lots of deaths for a comedy. And the entire story follows a very predictable arc, but it's still quite enjoyable. I laughed out loud, a lot. Maybe I've just loosened up quite a bit over the past year, but it usually takes a lot for me to outwardly enjoy a funny film so much. But then again, I usually attend movies at the theatre alone, and I've had some great company over the past few months. People I know, and who know me, so I just don't give a shit how I behave in the theatre, or how I sound laughing out loud.
The film works, for the most part, because of the chemistry Bullock and McCarthy have with each other, and even though Bullock is the superstar actress, the film definitely belongs to McCarthy, perhaps because the director Paul Feig recognized her abilities at leading a film when he directed her in "Bridesmaids." She may be the newest and female-version of Chris Farley. The only difference being that she doesn't need a sidekick like David Spade to be funny. She is funny all by herself.
Definitely go see this if you want a true escape from the reality of your life and you just want to laugh out loud for a good two hours.
"Raising Arizona"
starring: Nicholas Cage and Holly hunter
written by: Coen Brothers
directed by: Joel Coen
I wanted to like "Raising Arizona." I really did. And a part of me did enjoy it...for what it was, a very early film (from 1987) in the Coen Brothers filmography. The two have always worked as a pair, but for their early films Joel took Director credits and Ethan took Producer credits. It's safe to say they both work on the writing piece of their scripts. I could not hop on board with the way that Nicholas Cage's character, H.I., spoke- not only through his narration of the film, which sounds and feels like he's actually reading from an old, classic literary novel, as a way to perhaps make him more identifiable and relatable. He's not and this doesn't help. He's an ex-convict, who with the first 20 minutes of the film is in and out of jail 3 times for the same crimes (re: robbery). Apparently this is way before the 3-strike rule, because logically shouldn't he be spending a more significant amount of time in jail for his crimes? Or maybe it's because he's a white dude in the Southern Bible belt. He just sounds ridiculous as a person. And since my struggle, throughout my own personal writing career, has been making my characters sound believable, like real people, it's interesting that I am able to pick up in films when characters seem to unreal. And it's not just Cage's character, all the characters in this Coen Brothers' world speak in a ridiculous way. It comes off as being very artificial, and that is a turn off, for me. It's also distracting, when you are trying to get into a film.
It's actually a brief film, for a Coen Brothers' film, but it just seems to drag on because of the subplots and the dialogue and how these characters speak, when they have to converse with each other. It made the film seems extremely long, longer than it actually was.
And then, there's the whole plot. But, before I get into it, I totally understand that some films are designed to be an escape from reality and can therefore defy any sense of logic, but come on, to a degree. Right? Is it supposed to be a real world comedy-drama found inside the trailer park side of life or is it supposed to be more of a fantasy? It's hard to figure out as you are watching everything unfold, because they spend time in reality and then very quickly jump to a fantasy sequence, that distracts the viewer.
Basically Cage's H.I. is an ex-convict and Holly Hunter is an ex-cop. They find each other in passing while H.I. is in and out of jail. They end up married, but unable to have children. They get the idea to kidnap one of the five kids that a furniture salesman has with his wife. They succeed and are then on the run to start their own family. Meanwhile, they are being pursued by several people interested in the $25,000 reward that comes with returning the kid to his parents. The subplots of these people (a couple of ex-cons, one played by John Goodman) and also a guardian, superhero-like Hell's Angel biker dude who roars his bike through towns attempting to track down this fugitive couple and return the baby to his parents is far from ridiculous and comes off as simply pointless. Neither story really pushes the story further, in fact, they act as derailments for the story.
It's too far from reality and takes itself all over the map that it ended up being a disappointment for me. Instead, I'll stick with the more recent films in the Coen Brothers' filmography because it seems like over the years they've at least been able to figure themselves out as far as what they want to do with a film as it is intended for its audience. This one is a lost cause.
......................................................
Film 184
"The Game"
starring: Michael Douglas and Sean Penn
directed by: David Fincher
The Game is either the worst birthday present for (someone who is a control freak like) Michael Douglas' character, Nicholas Van Orton, or the best birthday present ever.
Douglas plays Van Orton who is a very wealthy/rich businessman who happens to also be in obsessive control of every single aspect of his life. This fact also makes him one of the saddest guys you feel sorry for because he is so obviously lonely, but yet won't do anything to change that. He is even mostly estranged from his brother, Conrad (played by Sean Penn, who is in and out of the film rather soon, until he shows up at the end, again). Conrad appears to offer his brother a peace offering that doubles as a birthday present. It's called "The Game" and it is run and operated by a company called Consumer Recreation Services. There are never any specified rules or objectives to "The Game" other than what Conrad tells his brother. You call them, they take care of everything. You won't even know that they are involved in your life. "It will make your life fun again." This is assuming Nicholas doesn't think his life is fun anymore. That's what makes it so intriguing. Now, why Nicholas decides to call them is a mystery, because it goes against everything he has believed in order to run his life. But, nonetheless, he calls and shit starts to happen to him. The kind of stuff that would have never happened to him before, because he was so in control of his life. So, I guess "The Game" is that you're not in control anymore- unless they want you to think you are. And who are "they." Nicholas becomes suspicious of everyone in his life, especially the new people that have shown up.
Soon everything starts to fall apart. His pen leaks. His briefcase won't open. Wine is spilled on him in a restaurant. He is trapped in an elevator. The level of chaos rises. He finds himself blackmailed, his bank accounts are emptied, he wanders like a homeless man, he is trapped inside a cab sinking in a bay, he is left for dead in Mexico.
Michael Douglas, as portrayed in the other films that I've watched for his project, is a master at playing wealthy and powerful men. Here, though, he is reduced to a stumbling and desperate man on the run from his own life, because he has simply given in to temptation of "making his life fun again" and instead he believes his entire life is unraveling right before his eyes and he wants to stop it, but can't.
I have always been a big fan of David Fincher, ever since I saw "Se7en," so I may be a little bias, but I think he is a master of the thriller genre. He knows what to reveal, how much of the secrets to reveal and when to reveal them, so as to make you think you have it figured out, as a viewer, and then he sort of pulls the carpet from beneath you or twists the knife a little further. David Fincher is great about avoiding movie and script cliches, as well as allowing his stories to remain unpredictable.
I had seen bits and pieces of this film a few years ago, I believe, because it was on television or some movie channel. I think I missed that it was a Fincher film, because had I known back then, I probably would've tried to appreciate more. I certainly enjoyed it this time around and I appreciate the way Fincher slowly develops his story, with just enough action her and there to make you question and think about what you are seeing, as well as adding the aspect of paranoia that Van Orton is feeling, that he doesn't trust anyone anymore. Here, you are wondering if "The Game" is really happening or if Van Orton is just simply learning a lesson: one of humility and humanity.
"The Game" is a great movie for all the right reasons: a wonderful director that knows how to craft a story, with a dark and ominous setting, Michael Douglas is stellar as a guy who has it all and quickly loses everything, as well as his own self-confidence and composure. Does he learn a lesson? Watch it to find out.
..............................................................
Film 185
"Surviving Crooked Lake"
starring: 4 teenage girls
Unfortunately, this is a film that is ultimately a complete and utter waste of time. I don't know how or why it was even greenlit, because there seems to be an abundance of "survival" type movies already out there and this one does nothing to expand the genre. I feel bad for the 4 teenage girls that obviously gave their all as far as their performances go, but it's just a failure right out of the gate, because the writing is subpar. There's really no plot other than: 4 girls and an older brother take a couple of canoes out to an island, there's the suggestion of the want of sexual activity between one of the girls and the brother which leads to chase through the woods, the brother ends up dying in a freak, completely unbelievable accident with a tree, and then the 4 girls are left to find their way back and off the island without their guide- whom they have in tow with them, in a sleeping bag, because his 14 year old sister didn't want to leave him behind. There's some tension among the 4 girls and 3 of them end up leaving the sister alone withe her dead brother.
That's a sort of heavy plot that the director and writers choose to handle lightly, although they use many close-ups to try to convey emotions. These are 14 year old girls, though, who probably haven't had any formal acting training. In fact, the entire film kind of plays out like a group of friends decided to spend a weekend filming the entire thing. There is absolutely no character development and the story just plays out like a day-in-the-life-of these 4 girls. We don't know anything about them before this trip and we don't really get to know them at all during their tension. It could have been so much more, because I remember being a 14 year old boy, and teenage girls are really confusing. The filmmakers could have really had something if they'd decided to dive into the psyche of these 4 girls and made it more about their survival amongst each other. Almost like a "Lod of the Flies" situation, I guess. Now, that would have been interesting. I would have watched that with enthusiasm. This film didn't really grab my attention at all, other than the cinematography, which was really the only redeeming quality because its gradual change- from the beginning and being sunny and bright which allowed for the happy, summery vibe and as the tension built up the scenery changed to become more ominous feel of "what will happen to them?"
Don't waste your time, like I did.
.............................................................
Film 186
"The Heat"
starring: Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy
I'm not going to lie, there was a big part of me that thoroughly enjoyed "The Heat," and it wasn't the teenage boy crush I used to have on Sandra Bullock (oh, yes, remember her days in "Speed" and "The Net?"). Although, it is a typical, formulaic buddy-cop movie, filled with cliches (the foul-mouthed, do-it-my-way black sheep cop and the overly cautious, rule-following, and snobby FBI agent team up together; and let's not forget the music-laden movie montage where they become close and share too many drinks; as well as a predictable plot, lots of foul language, things blowing up and a drug-related villain), it is a great comedy that will definitely have you laughing along with the ridiculousness that ensues right from the beginning.
I love Sandra Bullock, even though I think she's been typecast as the girl-turned-woman-next-door/nice girl in far too many of her films. It was great to see her unleash some foul language towards the end, but it's almost like hearing your mom (you gorgeous, hot mom that all the boys have a crush on) swearing. Bullock plays Ashburn (last name), an FBI agent who is brilliant, by the book, and hated by her colleagues for the way she lets everyone know who brilliant and great at her job she is. And Melissa McCarthy has certainly shown herself to be a not-so-hidden comedic genius, unfortunately, a lot of her comedy has come from the foul language or gross-out department (re: "Bridesmaids" and the shitting in the sink scene). Nothing's changed for her hear, except that now her character garners some sympathy fro the audience, as well as Bullock's FBI agent character. She's got some heart. She's got some feelings, and goddamnit if she's not afraid to let anyone know. You sort of feel bad for both ladies. They're from different situations, but they belong together, as a crime solving unit, and hell, even as friends, by the end of the film. McCarthy's Mullins (last name) is a Boston detective that does things the way she wants and doesn't give two shits about who or how it affects people. She speaks her mind, often quite vulgarly. She is quite slovenly. And she has violent tendencies. "I will hit you with a book 57,000 times," she tells Ashburn upon first meeting her in an interrogation room.
The film is basically about these two mismatched officers of the law trying to bring down a Boston drug lord. They each have their own reasons for pursuing the case. Ashburn wants the coveted promotion she so desires. Mullins wants to make sure her brother can survive out of the drug game and straighten himself out. The film is actually pretty violent- lots of deaths for a comedy. And the entire story follows a very predictable arc, but it's still quite enjoyable. I laughed out loud, a lot. Maybe I've just loosened up quite a bit over the past year, but it usually takes a lot for me to outwardly enjoy a funny film so much. But then again, I usually attend movies at the theatre alone, and I've had some great company over the past few months. People I know, and who know me, so I just don't give a shit how I behave in the theatre, or how I sound laughing out loud.
The film works, for the most part, because of the chemistry Bullock and McCarthy have with each other, and even though Bullock is the superstar actress, the film definitely belongs to McCarthy, perhaps because the director Paul Feig recognized her abilities at leading a film when he directed her in "Bridesmaids." She may be the newest and female-version of Chris Farley. The only difference being that she doesn't need a sidekick like David Spade to be funny. She is funny all by herself.
Definitely go see this if you want a true escape from the reality of your life and you just want to laugh out loud for a good two hours.
Comments
Post a Comment