the week in review (8/1/04 - 8/7/04)

Through A Glass Darkly (1961, Ingmar Bergman) (v) 89
Wasn't sure what I was going to write here, but then Scott saw Wild Strawberries and called it "pretty much critic-proof", and that's how I feel about this Bergman as well. Impeccably acted (Harriet Andersson is phenomenal), beautifully shot (by Sven Nykvist, of course), and a script you could bounce a quarter off. And although it clearly demonstrates that Bergman came from theater, and the story could easily be staged, it never feels like a well-made play shot on film (Un air de famille, I'm looking at you). If it isn't 90+, it's probably because I'm not so big on movies about faith; luckily, there's more to it than just that.

Capturing The Friedmans (2003, Andrew Jarecki) (v) 82
Comments to come (hopefully).

Hellboy (2004, Guillermo Del Toro) (v) 73
After all the fair-to-middlin' reviews, I'm as surprised as anyone that I liked this as much as I did. Probably has to do with the comics: last Christmas, I read through a couple of collections, and wasn't impressed. Great artwork and atmosphere (and if that's all you're looking for, go get 'em), but I was reminded of that panel in Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics, where he takes a bite of the apple and it's hollow. So it's funny, and perhaps not unexpected, that such a shallow, all-concept-and-no-heft kind of story should make for a good time in front of the TV.

I think I was hooked when the floodlight went through the portal and bounced off the gigantic Lovecraftian god-monster, and I knew I liked it better than Blade II when Del Toro used long, smooth takes instead of the former's choppy editing style. Ron Perlman is completely convincing, especially visually, as Hellboy, an odd-looking character that doesn't seem translatable from the comic book. And I was delighted by the appearance of Jeffrey Tambor; he brings his ability, as demonstrated on "Larry Sanders" and "Arrested Development", to walk the line between comedy and drama, to find the serious in the comic and vice-versa. Overall, it worked as an action movie for me better than, say, The Rundown, which also has a "just the facts, ma'am" hero at its center.

Not that it's perfect: the languid pace is really strange (it needed rat-ta-tat screwball-style dialogue), the Abe Sapien character doesn't work (the Niles Crane voice is distracting, and although he helps Hellboy, it's difficult to determine what role, structurally, he plays in the story), and after a smooth start, starts to lumber from scene to scene (the "Spying on Liz" scene is awkwardly worked into the story, and there's a big ol' gap between two climactic scenes). But despite all this, there's something about this team of freaks that works. In fact, now that Bryan Singer's jumped ship for Superman, Fox should give Del Toro a shot at X3.

Father Goose (1964, Ralph Nelson) (v) 60
Comedic romance between drunkard Cary Grant and uptight Leslie Caron on a small island during WWII weaves violently back-and-forth from interesting to intensely annoying. By the end, it finds the middle-of-the-road. Well, maybe that's where it always was. Slight but satisfying.

Two Evil Eyes (1990, Dario Argento & George Romero) (v) 52
A Poe diptych by two masters of horror, shot on location in Pittsburgh. The first segment is Romero's The Facts in the Case of Mr. Valdemar. The writing, generally, is tight and the gore effects (especially the final one) are good, but instead of spicing up the predictable story, it's always vanilla. Romero said it was like directing an episode of "Columbo", and it shows. 42

Argento's story is The Black Cat, and boy, was this a revelation. Perhaps because of the budget, perhaps because of the location shooting, or perhaps because he wanted to challenge himself, Argento forsakes most of his usual stylistic calling-cards. No primary color schemes, no serial killers, very little mystery. Instead, he focuses entirely on Rod Usher (Harvey Keitel), a photographer who specializes in crime-scene photos and other lurid scenes, as his obsessions get the best of him, leading him to kill his wife's black cat for art. Naturally, this leads to a bad end for everyone involved. Since there is no mystery (or better put, Usher is the instigator of the mystery), Argento is forced to deal with the inner nature of his protagonist, and surprisingly, he comes through. I've never seen an Argento movie that was so character-driven as this that I'm shocked that he co-wrote it; at times, it's closer to Abel Ferrara or somebody. Although it's full of allusions to Poe (Rod Usher, Annabel, Mr. Pym), there are references to Hitchcock and Mario Bava's Hatchet for the Honeymoon as well. In fact, although Argento has been called "The Italian Hitchcock", this is the only time that comparison seems apt, particularly at the end when the cops come calling and Usher desperately tries to cover his guilt. It's not entirely successful -- I have no idea what Usher is trying to accomplish in the final scene, except provide a punch-line for the hour-long set-up -- but it's incredibly interesting, nonetheless. Ultimately, what this segment tells me is that Argento could make a "normal" movie if he wanted to, and that every bizarre idea (like monkeys with straight razors) is carefully considered and chosen. Gotta give the guy credit for going with his muse, but this glimpse at an alternate Argento makes me just a tiny bit sad. 62

Where we saw it: week in review | We deign to rate it: outta 100
Posted by kza at 11:10 AM | Comments (1)