Film Club 2K6 Vol 5
Kind of a sparse week this week, but lets dig in.
Dune
Plot Summary
The desert planet Arrakis - we enter the year 10191 and the whole universe depends on the spice Melange which exists only on this dry and desolate planet. The natives of this planet await the arrival of their Messiah who will lead them into a holy war against the evil Harkonnen empire.
Review
I’ve never been able to watch more than 20 minutes of this movie before I’ve either gotten bored or just flat out fallen asleep. But, with the release of a new special edition DVD, I decided to sit and watch the whole freaking thing.
To be honest, my past experience with the film made me skeptical. I mean, every time I got to the hand in the box bit, I always seemed to get the urge to put on “Evil Dead 2”.
In a nutshell, my thoughts on the film really come down to David Lynch himself. In all honesty, he really was the wrong man for the job. There are certain indie filmmakers who are able to make the jump to epic films. But you can usually see the seeds or that ability in their early work. Peter Jackson, Sam Raimi, and Doug Liman (Who I’ll talk about in my next review) are shining examples of this.
Lynch has been, and always will be in his element when he’s dealing more in abstracts (the glaring exclusion to this being “The Straight Story”). The novel of “Dune” was considered “unfilmable”, and to many people, the resulting film is proof of that. However, I think that PJ doing “Lord of the Rings” really proved that nothing is unfilmable.
It also proved that the script has to be very painfully crafted. The prolouge’s of the two films are particularly interesting counter points. The prologue to LOTR is so well done because it gives the audience specifically what it needs to know. And more so than what peoples names are, it very clearly establishes who is good, who is bad, what new races we’re dealing with, and the importance of the ring, and a solid sense of the world the film inhabits. Most of this in a visually amazing way. Dune on the other hand had some chick talking to the screen rattling off jargon that the audience has never heard of. You can tell me the name of a race, but if you’re not going to show me who they are, I’m not going to recognize them later in the film.
My biggest pet peeve with the film was the inner monologue of all the characters. This was just flat out annoying. Especially because a lot of the diaglogue is redundant. There’s a scene what Kyle McLachlan is talking to Max Von Sydow, and it’s clear that Max is hiding something and kind of dodging Kyle’s questions somewhat, then we have to hear Kyle spout off something like “He’s hiding something and dodging my questions!” While all this is going on I’m still trying to figure out who the hell everyone is, which just leaves me frustrated.
Now having said that, there are a couple of good things I can say about the movie. The film does stabilize a bit once Paul hooks up with the Freemens (I think that’s what they were called) and they go and have their little revolution (except for the whole blue water bit…that was confusing). And the effects are surprisingly strong. I was really impressed with Lynch’s ability to handle special effects, especially considering it’s not something he ever deals with anymore.
Overall, to me at least, this movie is the sum of it’s flaws.
Mr. and Mrs. Smith
Plot Summary
A married couple (Pitt and Jolie) are getting bored with their quiet domestic life. What they don't know, however, is that they're both assassins, secretly hopping the world and killing for hire. But their separate lives are about to collide when each finds out their next target is their own spouse.
Review
Every year there’s a few movies I really want to see that I never get around to. And last year this was the big one I missed.
I love Doug Liman. I’ve been a huge fan of every film he’s made so far. “Swingers” is probably in my top 10 of all time, “Go” is absolutely brilliant, and “Bourne Identity” is one of the smartest action films of the last 15 years.
Liman’s got a couple of natural talents that really elevate his game above most directors. First and foremost is his attention to detail. Every one of his movies has replay value, and whenever you watch one of his films again you’ll notice things you never caught the first time. I always love in “Bourne” that every time he has an altercation with someone, he immediately changes up his clothing. The character is always doing really subtle things to adapt to his situation, but it’s never pointed out. It’s not important to the plot, so you’re fine if you don’t notice it, but if you’re watching you’re overloaded with character clues.
Liman also really understands how to work with actors. He knows that he can just put a camera on Vince Vaughn and let him run (on Swingers Liman used to say that he would always shoot hand held on Vaughn so he could pick up those improvised moments quickly. The “You’re all growsed up” speech on top of the table is an example of that), and he’s able to pull performances you’ve never seen before out of actors. Before “Bourne” people thought the idea of Matt Damon as an action star was laughable. And with this film, he really gets a new performance from Angelina. She’d done the action thing with “Tomb Raider” but she’s never really given a humerous performance like she did here. What impresses me most about how funny she is in this is the fact that she was so flat in the only comedy she’s made, “Life or something like it”.
The other thing about Liman is how clear his vision of a film is from start to finish. He knows exactly what kind of tone he’s aiming for before a single frame is shot. That doesn’t sound like much, but each of his films always seem to have a unique tone. “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” is this action/romance/comedy, and it’s the mother of all tightrope acts. You want the action to be intense, but not too serious because you also want things to be funny, but not cartoony. You want romance, but you don’t want a chick flick. It’s a really tall order, and I loved how well it melded the perfect blend of genre’s.
I also ran across something I didn’t even really consider until I heard it mentioned on the audio commentary. For an “action movie” it doesn’t really follow the format. More specifically there’s no climax with an antogonist. Instead it’s formatted like a romantic movie, in that the climax is really between the two main characters, and the villains aren’t really the focus.
Anyway, I really really dug this film. Liman set out to make a smart, fun popcorn movie, and I think he succeded in spades. This is just a really fun film. And I have to say, I loved the bit where Brad Pitt was interogatting a guy in a “Fight Club” t-shirt. I thought that was just cool.
Great film. I can’t wait for Doug Liman to get started on his next film, “Jumper”.
DunePlot Summary
The desert planet Arrakis - we enter the year 10191 and the whole universe depends on the spice Melange which exists only on this dry and desolate planet. The natives of this planet await the arrival of their Messiah who will lead them into a holy war against the evil Harkonnen empire.
Review
I’ve never been able to watch more than 20 minutes of this movie before I’ve either gotten bored or just flat out fallen asleep. But, with the release of a new special edition DVD, I decided to sit and watch the whole freaking thing.
To be honest, my past experience with the film made me skeptical. I mean, every time I got to the hand in the box bit, I always seemed to get the urge to put on “Evil Dead 2”.
In a nutshell, my thoughts on the film really come down to David Lynch himself. In all honesty, he really was the wrong man for the job. There are certain indie filmmakers who are able to make the jump to epic films. But you can usually see the seeds or that ability in their early work. Peter Jackson, Sam Raimi, and Doug Liman (Who I’ll talk about in my next review) are shining examples of this.
Lynch has been, and always will be in his element when he’s dealing more in abstracts (the glaring exclusion to this being “The Straight Story”). The novel of “Dune” was considered “unfilmable”, and to many people, the resulting film is proof of that. However, I think that PJ doing “Lord of the Rings” really proved that nothing is unfilmable.
It also proved that the script has to be very painfully crafted. The prolouge’s of the two films are particularly interesting counter points. The prologue to LOTR is so well done because it gives the audience specifically what it needs to know. And more so than what peoples names are, it very clearly establishes who is good, who is bad, what new races we’re dealing with, and the importance of the ring, and a solid sense of the world the film inhabits. Most of this in a visually amazing way. Dune on the other hand had some chick talking to the screen rattling off jargon that the audience has never heard of. You can tell me the name of a race, but if you’re not going to show me who they are, I’m not going to recognize them later in the film.
My biggest pet peeve with the film was the inner monologue of all the characters. This was just flat out annoying. Especially because a lot of the diaglogue is redundant. There’s a scene what Kyle McLachlan is talking to Max Von Sydow, and it’s clear that Max is hiding something and kind of dodging Kyle’s questions somewhat, then we have to hear Kyle spout off something like “He’s hiding something and dodging my questions!” While all this is going on I’m still trying to figure out who the hell everyone is, which just leaves me frustrated.
Now having said that, there are a couple of good things I can say about the movie. The film does stabilize a bit once Paul hooks up with the Freemens (I think that’s what they were called) and they go and have their little revolution (except for the whole blue water bit…that was confusing). And the effects are surprisingly strong. I was really impressed with Lynch’s ability to handle special effects, especially considering it’s not something he ever deals with anymore.
Overall, to me at least, this movie is the sum of it’s flaws.
Mr. and Mrs. Smith Plot Summary
A married couple (Pitt and Jolie) are getting bored with their quiet domestic life. What they don't know, however, is that they're both assassins, secretly hopping the world and killing for hire. But their separate lives are about to collide when each finds out their next target is their own spouse.
Review
Every year there’s a few movies I really want to see that I never get around to. And last year this was the big one I missed.
I love Doug Liman. I’ve been a huge fan of every film he’s made so far. “Swingers” is probably in my top 10 of all time, “Go” is absolutely brilliant, and “Bourne Identity” is one of the smartest action films of the last 15 years.
Liman’s got a couple of natural talents that really elevate his game above most directors. First and foremost is his attention to detail. Every one of his movies has replay value, and whenever you watch one of his films again you’ll notice things you never caught the first time. I always love in “Bourne” that every time he has an altercation with someone, he immediately changes up his clothing. The character is always doing really subtle things to adapt to his situation, but it’s never pointed out. It’s not important to the plot, so you’re fine if you don’t notice it, but if you’re watching you’re overloaded with character clues.
Liman also really understands how to work with actors. He knows that he can just put a camera on Vince Vaughn and let him run (on Swingers Liman used to say that he would always shoot hand held on Vaughn so he could pick up those improvised moments quickly. The “You’re all growsed up” speech on top of the table is an example of that), and he’s able to pull performances you’ve never seen before out of actors. Before “Bourne” people thought the idea of Matt Damon as an action star was laughable. And with this film, he really gets a new performance from Angelina. She’d done the action thing with “Tomb Raider” but she’s never really given a humerous performance like she did here. What impresses me most about how funny she is in this is the fact that she was so flat in the only comedy she’s made, “Life or something like it”.
The other thing about Liman is how clear his vision of a film is from start to finish. He knows exactly what kind of tone he’s aiming for before a single frame is shot. That doesn’t sound like much, but each of his films always seem to have a unique tone. “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” is this action/romance/comedy, and it’s the mother of all tightrope acts. You want the action to be intense, but not too serious because you also want things to be funny, but not cartoony. You want romance, but you don’t want a chick flick. It’s a really tall order, and I loved how well it melded the perfect blend of genre’s.
I also ran across something I didn’t even really consider until I heard it mentioned on the audio commentary. For an “action movie” it doesn’t really follow the format. More specifically there’s no climax with an antogonist. Instead it’s formatted like a romantic movie, in that the climax is really between the two main characters, and the villains aren’t really the focus.
Anyway, I really really dug this film. Liman set out to make a smart, fun popcorn movie, and I think he succeded in spades. This is just a really fun film. And I have to say, I loved the bit where Brad Pitt was interogatting a guy in a “Fight Club” t-shirt. I thought that was just cool.
Great film. I can’t wait for Doug Liman to get started on his next film, “Jumper”.
posted by Casey at 10:47 AM
7 Comments:
"Go" was absolutely brilliant? Seriously? I though go was pretty good. It kept my interest more than some movies of that genre. But absolutely brilliant? Your taste in movies if definately "Whack".
(As a white guy I never get to use the term "Whack". I figured it seem appropriate here)
Jayne, I like the ramblings. Before I begin, good call on The Straight Story, maybe one of the most overlooked films in the past decade.
Now, back to business. Although I'm in your camp in never really liking David Lynch as much as my fellow Lodge dwellers, you seriously need to get off Peter Jackson's lap and read the Dune series. Lynch stays true to the books (which explains the narration with the characters thoughts), which I always admire after seeing countless movies raped by overzealous studios, and the books are brilliant. The story is a complicated one, and I think it still holds up on film.
I liked Mr. & Mrs. Smith also. The film really got an unfair shake with the critics. It was entertaining with Pitt & Jolie displaying an electric chemistry that was fully evident on film. Of course, Angelina could probably have chemistry with just about everybody she's so damn sexy. Good call on the "Fight Club" T-shirt, I also noticed it.
My love of "Go" may be a little biased, because Sarah Polley is one of my all time favorite actresses.
But really, I love the storyline, I think the acting is great, I dig the camerawork (which I dig in all of his movies).
Make no mistake, I dig Lynch, I just think he was the wrong person for the movie.
And just because the narration was in the books doesn't mean it should be in the movie. They're two different mediums, and you have to adapt a lot of story telling devices. A big chunk of the narration wasn't needed simply because we can see how they feel based on how they act. We shouldn't need to be told that a character is scared or worried, we should be able to just see it.
And I only use the Peter Jackson example because both Dune and LOTR share a lot of similarities, yet the film versions gave very different results.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
TP, Did you watch the extended version? I just read that "Allan Smithee" is the "director" for the extended version. Turns out this is a re-edited version that was shown on TV at some point and Lynch had his name removed.
I'm not attacking your intelligence, but I think the Peter Jackson comparision is really stupid. Dune was released in 1984, and they started filming it in 1980. Jackson had 21st century technology to his disposal.
Technology has nothing to do with story telling. It's as simple as that.
Dune is a poorly told story. I actually really liked most of the effects work in Dune, so I don't think Technology has anything to do with it.
And the Alan Smithee version is basically just the same film with all of the deleted scenes poured back in. I watched some of the new scenes and it's pretty bad stuff.
Post a Comment
<< Home