June 12, 2004

the week in review (6/6/04 - 6/12/04)

Playtime (1967, Jacques Tati) (f) 99
What a difference 70mm makes. Here's a film that's more-or-less the one-stop-shop for the Film vs. Home Video argument. Gags that were once theoretical come alive. Bits that were moderately amusing turn uproarious in a crowded theater. Expressions that were unreadable on the DVD are registered with intense clarity. Definitely the highlight of SIFF and possibly of the movie year.

Hero (2004, Zhang Yimou) (f) 95
If Hero is indeed just a dry run for the real thing, as Jim Biancolo reports (I'm lovin' The Listology, btw -- great job, man), then... No, sorry, I can't even begin to imagine the ramifications of that statement.

The Best of Youth (2004, Marco Tullio Giordana) (f) 75
One of the highest compliments I can give a six-hour movie is that I'd gladly see it again.

Marathon Man (1976, John Schlesinger) (v) 72
William Devane looks like he was drawn by Mort Drucker.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004, Alfonso Cuarón) (f) 71
Wherein Hogwarts turns into Humboldt State University. Clearly in the hands of a superior director, but damned if I don't feel so conditioned by Cristóbal Colón's hacknastics that this installment feels a bit... relaxed. It doesn't help that the improved acting and mise-en-scene reveal that the Potter stories just really aren't suited for two- (or even three-) hour movies. Thewlis is wonderful, looking like he stepped out of a Michael Powell movie, but there aint enough Oldman. Also, for further study: read the Entertainment Weekly cover story, which has a lot of in-between-the-lines meat. Choice quote: "So [Radcliffe] asked his director for advice. In the past, when Radcliffe asked Columbus for help, he usually got instruction on effective facial expressions. Cuarón talked him through it -- then challenged his star to figure it out for himself."

The Dirty Dozen (1967, Robert Aldrich) (v) 65
I didn't know Donald Sutherland was in this movie. Does Donald Sutherland know he's in this movie?

Secret Fest #3 (can't say, won't say but I'd love to) (f) 46
Memo to self: Be sure to title any movie I write in such a way that it doesn't give critics ready-made ammo.

Where we saw it: week in review | We deign to rate it: outta 100
Posted by kza at 08:43 PM | Comments (7)
Comments

Yes, yes, yes and yes in regards to your comments on HENRY PORTER: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL WIZARD. The acting is markedly improved from the first two films (especially Emma Watson; can't wait to see how her career progresses) and, of course, this installment looks terrific. But the film is about 45 minutes too long and the third act BACK TO THE FUTURE-esque antics left me less than impressed.

Posted by: Scott at June 13, 2004 02:35 PM

Actually, I really enjoyed the time travel bit at the end (which is what ultimately bumped the score into the 70s) but then, I am an utter and complete sap for time travel stuff (see: THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT [66]). Emma Watson truly is a star, as well; I suspect she's got quite a career ahead of her. I know that if I'm making YELLOW in about four year's time, I'd try pretty damn hard to cast her in one of the lead roles.

Posted by: Kza at June 13, 2004 03:09 PM

I thought that the most interesting things about YOU GOT PUNK'D, SUCKER! were the nasty bits (especially the prison sequence). Hard to believe some of that stuff actually made it into the movie.

Posted by: Scott at June 13, 2004 04:24 PM

Oh, another thing I liked about the new Potter: the way Cuarón (or is it Kloves? Or is it Rowling?) manages to find plenty of reasons to get the kids out of those robes and into regular clothing.

Posted by: Kza at June 13, 2004 04:34 PM

Yes, it was nice to see Radcliffe and co. looking and acting like, gosh, real kids instead of Columbus/Rowling robots. Hopefully that will continue under Mike Newell's direction in GOBLET OF FIRE.

Posted by: Scott at June 13, 2004 05:35 PM

Hey, thanks for the Listology compliments - it's great having you there! I did find the source for that "Hero is the dry run" statement, which has me all quivery:

http://www.monkeypeaches.com/0401M.html#040128A

Monkeypeaches is a rumor site, so it might be false, but a quick Google search at least shows the quote showing up in a few more places.

Posted by: Jim Biancolo at June 16, 2004 01:27 PM

Thanks for the link, Jim! Lots of interesting tidbits on that page.

Posted by: Kza at June 17, 2004 10:32 AM