Intro
Solaris (2002)
I'm going to compare this movie to a general style made by another, acclaimed director. For most critics, nearly all of them in fact, this comparison would be complimentary and in fact maybe some of the highest praise you can give to a director. I am not most critics.
So here is a potential character flaw for me or if you want to be more generous, a blind spot in my movie watching. I have watched 2.5 Terrance Malick movies and I haven't liked any of them. They are boring, they are pretentious, and they are mind-numbingly long. The 0.5 is The Tree of Life, which I don't even think I watched half of that. I'm not somebody who likes to watch nature for 20 minutes when I'm watching a movie.
So obviously, this is the Soderbergh version of a Terrance Malick movie. If nothing else, I appreciate that the length of a Malick movie is not the obstacle I think it is - it's just that I don't like his style. Because Soderbergh understands that ideally movies are less than two hours, his movies get to the point. And Solaris is a Terrance Malick film if Terrance Malick believed movies could be short.
But like I said, I don't particularly like Terrance Malick movies and I had been blaming the length on that (and it was definitely my problem with A Hidden Life, a movie I may have liked if it was two hours), but it turns out I'm just as capable of disliking a Malick movie that is short.
I guess my problem is that I just don't like movies that are "reflective" and seem to be in a dream-like state? I mean I don't mind when movies have those two elements, but when that's the whole movie, I personally have nothing to latch onto. I have not been given a reason to care about the characters, and so I don't care.
The cast is top notch as these type of movies always seem to be. It requires a strong cast, because there's not a whole lot in the script. So the actors are forced to do much of the heavy lifting of providing characterization. There are essentially just five characters in this movie, and one of them is only seen through recordings.
The movie is purposefully distant and designed for you to be disoriented so you're trying to figure out what's going on for a decent portion of the movie. Which is fine, but between that and the dream-like state, there's very few moments to sketch out the characters, half of which are designed to be hard to read. Viola Davis is relatively early in her career in this movie and had you seen it in 2002, you could probably predict her rise pretty easily. She's that good. Jeremy Davies is at his most Jeremy Davies here.
And the two leads, George Clooney and the distant Natascha McElhone provide the emotional center of the movie. It's based on a Stanislaw Lem novel and in fact had been made into a movie already. Solaris as directed by Andrei Tarkovsky was a 167 minute movie. With how Roger Ebert describes the original movie, that sounds like an actual Terrance Malick film, so I have little doubt I would not like it, since it's also the length of a Terrance Malick film.
So, sorry that I ended up just talking about Malick this whole time, but well it felt like he could have directed this, which if you like his movies, take that as a compliment, but he's personally not for me, so this movie was not for me.
2/4 stars
Monday, June 29, 2020
Wednesday, June 24, 2020
Soderbergh Marathon: Part 14
Intro
Ocean's Thirteen
You can take this as a compliment or a negative about Ocean's Thirteen, and I'm not really sure which one it is, but this movie feels like a very typical sequel. Do the same thing as the first movie. This movie is exactly the same as the first movie. Obviously the details are different - and honestly Tess being removed from the equation removes that weakness of the first. But it's basically the same movie.
You create a villain so that the theft is about more than money. And while the first one is reasonably strong on the villain part, the third one definitely provides a better one, as played by Al Pacino. Pacino is fully old age Al Pacino, over the top and loud. This is not a complaint. That's what the role is supposed to be. It's not like Andy Garcia in the first one was a nuanced character.
And really, you do sort of need a better reason than the first for the internal logic of these movies to track. At this point, they're all filthy rich. I can buy that Danny Ocean and Rusty both steal for the thrill of it, but the other characters are not developed enough for that to be a worthwhile reason.
So they had their financier, Reuben, get fucked over by Al Pacino's character. I'm sure he has a name, but I'm just content to call him Al Pacino. So everybody wants to get revenge on him, which is a perfectly sound motive for a movie like this.
Let's get to the weird part of the movie: Matt Damon's seduction of Ellen Barkin. Again I am aware these actors all have character names, but this is just easier. I don't think their scenes are offensive, but they are weird and they take up a significant amount of screen time. I don't know how many writers wrote these three movies, but it's amazing how poorly they write women.
That's about all I have to say about Ocean's Thirteen really. It's the same movie as the first. I enjoyed it.
2.5/4 stars
The Underneath (1995)
When I covered The Good German, which was attempting to be a film noir that looks like it was made in the 1940s - and successfully so I may add - I was under the impression that was his first attempt at film noir. I was wrong. Sort of.
The Underneath is actually a remake of a film noir from 1949 Criss Cross. I haven't seen the original and actually have never even heard of the movie before researching the remake. Evidently, it's not all that similar to the original. Which, you know, if you're going to remake a movie, I guess remaking a little known movie that ventures in a different direction is the way to go.
The film noir elements are not immediately obvious, although once you watch the entire movie, it becomes blindingly obvious. The reason it's not obviously a film noir, at least at first, is because it's set in modern day, I don't believe it has a voiceover, and it's not really structured like a typical film noir either. But you have the hard on his luck protagonist, the femme fetale, and the double crosses present here.
Again, it only became clear later, and maybe I'm just slow, but beginning does successfully create the general mood that a film noir does. Sometimes, you'll start the movie with a flash forward, then have the protagonist deliver pulpy voiceovers setting up the movie.
There is no pulpy voiceover, but there is an ominous start, where Michael Chambers, played by Peter Gallagher, is driving a armored car, and it cut to him and a mysterious passenger, later revealed to be the man his mother is marrying (Paul Dooley), which successfully creates the mood that something will go wrong. Chambers sweats when driving and it's an armored car, so obviously you can draw your own conclusions about what might happen.
Gallagher is great - he's more sympathetic here than he normally is, but his character is no less slimy. He's a compulsive gambler who left town when he was in a hole, but returns for his mother's marriage. Allison Elliot is fine, but I feel like her and Elisabeth Shue should have switched parts. Shue's role is kind of superfluous in this movie - I don't really think the movie is much different if she's not in it, and that's not a commentary on her performance, just her character is an odd addition. William Fichtner plays a shady, sleazy hoodlum who is dating Chamber's ex - who he of course wants to get back together with.
Anyway, I'd say the two things holding this movie back are Elliot unfortunately, who doesn't quite rise to the level a movie like this demands. I'm not saying she's bad, just she's in a film noir where she's the femme fetale. A hard character to pull off admittedly - making a character intentionally not trustworthy, but who nonetheless has an allure that is hard to resist - not all actresses have that ability. And the other thing is it goes Wild Things on the twists, which works fine on Wild Things, a proudly trashy movie, but this is supposed to be taken more seriously.
2.5/4 stars
Ocean's Thirteen
You can take this as a compliment or a negative about Ocean's Thirteen, and I'm not really sure which one it is, but this movie feels like a very typical sequel. Do the same thing as the first movie. This movie is exactly the same as the first movie. Obviously the details are different - and honestly Tess being removed from the equation removes that weakness of the first. But it's basically the same movie.
You create a villain so that the theft is about more than money. And while the first one is reasonably strong on the villain part, the third one definitely provides a better one, as played by Al Pacino. Pacino is fully old age Al Pacino, over the top and loud. This is not a complaint. That's what the role is supposed to be. It's not like Andy Garcia in the first one was a nuanced character.
And really, you do sort of need a better reason than the first for the internal logic of these movies to track. At this point, they're all filthy rich. I can buy that Danny Ocean and Rusty both steal for the thrill of it, but the other characters are not developed enough for that to be a worthwhile reason.
So they had their financier, Reuben, get fucked over by Al Pacino's character. I'm sure he has a name, but I'm just content to call him Al Pacino. So everybody wants to get revenge on him, which is a perfectly sound motive for a movie like this.
Let's get to the weird part of the movie: Matt Damon's seduction of Ellen Barkin. Again I am aware these actors all have character names, but this is just easier. I don't think their scenes are offensive, but they are weird and they take up a significant amount of screen time. I don't know how many writers wrote these three movies, but it's amazing how poorly they write women.
That's about all I have to say about Ocean's Thirteen really. It's the same movie as the first. I enjoyed it.
2.5/4 stars
The Underneath (1995)
When I covered The Good German, which was attempting to be a film noir that looks like it was made in the 1940s - and successfully so I may add - I was under the impression that was his first attempt at film noir. I was wrong. Sort of.
The Underneath is actually a remake of a film noir from 1949 Criss Cross. I haven't seen the original and actually have never even heard of the movie before researching the remake. Evidently, it's not all that similar to the original. Which, you know, if you're going to remake a movie, I guess remaking a little known movie that ventures in a different direction is the way to go.
The film noir elements are not immediately obvious, although once you watch the entire movie, it becomes blindingly obvious. The reason it's not obviously a film noir, at least at first, is because it's set in modern day, I don't believe it has a voiceover, and it's not really structured like a typical film noir either. But you have the hard on his luck protagonist, the femme fetale, and the double crosses present here.
Again, it only became clear later, and maybe I'm just slow, but beginning does successfully create the general mood that a film noir does. Sometimes, you'll start the movie with a flash forward, then have the protagonist deliver pulpy voiceovers setting up the movie.
There is no pulpy voiceover, but there is an ominous start, where Michael Chambers, played by Peter Gallagher, is driving a armored car, and it cut to him and a mysterious passenger, later revealed to be the man his mother is marrying (Paul Dooley), which successfully creates the mood that something will go wrong. Chambers sweats when driving and it's an armored car, so obviously you can draw your own conclusions about what might happen.
Gallagher is great - he's more sympathetic here than he normally is, but his character is no less slimy. He's a compulsive gambler who left town when he was in a hole, but returns for his mother's marriage. Allison Elliot is fine, but I feel like her and Elisabeth Shue should have switched parts. Shue's role is kind of superfluous in this movie - I don't really think the movie is much different if she's not in it, and that's not a commentary on her performance, just her character is an odd addition. William Fichtner plays a shady, sleazy hoodlum who is dating Chamber's ex - who he of course wants to get back together with.
Anyway, I'd say the two things holding this movie back are Elliot unfortunately, who doesn't quite rise to the level a movie like this demands. I'm not saying she's bad, just she's in a film noir where she's the femme fetale. A hard character to pull off admittedly - making a character intentionally not trustworthy, but who nonetheless has an allure that is hard to resist - not all actresses have that ability. And the other thing is it goes Wild Things on the twists, which works fine on Wild Things, a proudly trashy movie, but this is supposed to be taken more seriously.
2.5/4 stars
Monday, June 22, 2020
Soderbergh Marathon: Part 13
Intro
Traffic (2000)
Steven Soderbergh has made movies just about every year from 1989 until 2019, with the exception of a short break from 2014 to 2017, and even with that break he's made 30 movies. Not all 30 of his movies are considered good movie, in fact quite a bit of them are not, but he has made his fair share of critically acclaimed movies and audience favorite movies.
Somehow, in that long career, the Academy Awards decided to shove all their acclaim on him in basically one year. Erin Brokovich, a movie I didn't particularly like, was nominated for five Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Director. Traffic was also nominated for five awards, which also included Best Picture and Best Director. Traffic won three awards, Erin Brokovich only won one for Julia Roberts' performance.
Erin Brokovich did not deserve all the acclaim, but Traffic absolutely did. This is the only Oscar he's got for Best Directing and he directed the shit out of this movie. There are three disparate, mostly unconnected stories attempting to encompass the entirety of the impact of the drug trade through those three stories. You have the rich dealers, the drug users, and the incompetent attempts to win a drug war.
It is one of the few long Soderbergh movies - it clocks in at 147 minutes - but actually it's about as short as it can be. Soderbergh seems to have essentially the same mindset as I do - he does not want to make long movies, but given the scope of Traffic, it's inevitable it will run a little longer. I admire the fact that it's only 147 minutes actually because you could very easily make this longer and the movie would suffer for it.
One of the most obvious directing choices he makes is that he puts a different color scheme for each story. This was Soderbergh's way of making the audience instantly aware of which story they're following, and it's highly effective. Even if you're not aware of what he's doing, your brain can pick up on that stuff subconsciously, which makes the movie feel less confusing than it could be.
The cast is of course great, because no great movie has a bad cast. I'm a little surprise Benicio del Tor won for Best Supporting Actor, not because he's not good, but just because it's not really that flashy? Like I get why Roberts won, the Academy loves performances like hers, but he's not like obviously doing a better job than the rest of the cast? He did have to learn a new accent for the part and I like him in just about every movie I've seen him in, so no complaints he got his dues at some point.
This is just a big cast with lots of names who are normally good in their parts. You have Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones, who are married in real life but oddly I don't think they shared one scene together in this movie. Kind of funny. Don Cheadle, saddled with a stereotype in Out of Sight and a bad accent in the Ocean's movies, finally gets a part that does him justice here. His partner, Luis Guzman, pretty much plays the same part he always does and I dare you to dislike that part. Topher Grace was hired to play Topher Grace. I would name more, but there are a shit ton of well-known actors in this movie, at least known to me.
Traffic was one of the few Soderbergh movies I had seen before, and I don't think I fully appreciated it the first time so I'm glad I got to rewatch it. If any of his movies were to be critically acclaimed, I understand why it was the one and it's well-deserved acclaim.
4/4 stars
Traffic (2000)
Steven Soderbergh has made movies just about every year from 1989 until 2019, with the exception of a short break from 2014 to 2017, and even with that break he's made 30 movies. Not all 30 of his movies are considered good movie, in fact quite a bit of them are not, but he has made his fair share of critically acclaimed movies and audience favorite movies.
Somehow, in that long career, the Academy Awards decided to shove all their acclaim on him in basically one year. Erin Brokovich, a movie I didn't particularly like, was nominated for five Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Director. Traffic was also nominated for five awards, which also included Best Picture and Best Director. Traffic won three awards, Erin Brokovich only won one for Julia Roberts' performance.
Erin Brokovich did not deserve all the acclaim, but Traffic absolutely did. This is the only Oscar he's got for Best Directing and he directed the shit out of this movie. There are three disparate, mostly unconnected stories attempting to encompass the entirety of the impact of the drug trade through those three stories. You have the rich dealers, the drug users, and the incompetent attempts to win a drug war.
It is one of the few long Soderbergh movies - it clocks in at 147 minutes - but actually it's about as short as it can be. Soderbergh seems to have essentially the same mindset as I do - he does not want to make long movies, but given the scope of Traffic, it's inevitable it will run a little longer. I admire the fact that it's only 147 minutes actually because you could very easily make this longer and the movie would suffer for it.
One of the most obvious directing choices he makes is that he puts a different color scheme for each story. This was Soderbergh's way of making the audience instantly aware of which story they're following, and it's highly effective. Even if you're not aware of what he's doing, your brain can pick up on that stuff subconsciously, which makes the movie feel less confusing than it could be.
The cast is of course great, because no great movie has a bad cast. I'm a little surprise Benicio del Tor won for Best Supporting Actor, not because he's not good, but just because it's not really that flashy? Like I get why Roberts won, the Academy loves performances like hers, but he's not like obviously doing a better job than the rest of the cast? He did have to learn a new accent for the part and I like him in just about every movie I've seen him in, so no complaints he got his dues at some point.
This is just a big cast with lots of names who are normally good in their parts. You have Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones, who are married in real life but oddly I don't think they shared one scene together in this movie. Kind of funny. Don Cheadle, saddled with a stereotype in Out of Sight and a bad accent in the Ocean's movies, finally gets a part that does him justice here. His partner, Luis Guzman, pretty much plays the same part he always does and I dare you to dislike that part. Topher Grace was hired to play Topher Grace. I would name more, but there are a shit ton of well-known actors in this movie, at least known to me.
Traffic was one of the few Soderbergh movies I had seen before, and I don't think I fully appreciated it the first time so I'm glad I got to rewatch it. If any of his movies were to be critically acclaimed, I understand why it was the one and it's well-deserved acclaim.
4/4 stars
Thursday, June 18, 2020
Soderbergh Marathon: Part 12
Intro
Ocean's Twelve
I had seen Ocean's Twelve before and remember not liking it, so my expectations were not terribly high watching this. As an added bonus, I remembered essentially none of it either. Now, I don't like to go into a film thinking I won't like it, but if the film is remotely competent or even good, this is an ideal way to watch a movie in my opinion. An okay movie will be a happy surprise.
This was an okay movie. It's a weird movie and I think it's disliked because it doesn't really follow the parameters of what a heist movie is. This doesn't have the fun plans of the first and third entries of the franchise. Like with most heist movies, you'll have a target to steal and most of the movie will be comprising the team, developing the plans, and executing the heist. Doesn't exactly work that way in this movie.
On the one hand, I respect the attempt to not repeat the first movie. This is a vastly different movie than the first movie. On the other hand, this is pure popcorn entertainment and you're not really giving the audience what they want with how this movie is structured. I'm not saying you need to follow the formula exactly, but this is just a very oddly structured movie to be honest.
It's just not as fun of a movie, except for the meta moments, which sure straddle the line between being dumb and actually funny. I still can't decide if I like Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts even though the subterfuge is basically the highlight of the movie. Like the very act of acknowledging this is a movie threatens to trample our ability to get engaged in the movie.
Reportedly, they did this because Julia Roberts was pregnant, and I guess they didn't want the character Tess to be pregnant, so that's how they worked that into the script. It's certainly one way to deal with a pregnancy.
The movie has Brad Pitt's character just so happen to be formerly sleeping with the head detective in charge of catching them and she just so happens to have an ultra famous secretive dad for a thief. Between that and the meta moments, this just kind of breaks down for me. It's entertaining to a point, although the thieves constantly getting caught is not what we want to see.
Anyway, my thoughts on the movie are disjointed and confusing because that's kind of how this movie is, just trying to look cool and get you to ignore all the things that don't make sense. Which is true of all three movies, but it's never been more true than it is for Ocean's Twelve, which is why it's the worst of the three in my opinion.
2/4 stars
Ocean's Twelve
I had seen Ocean's Twelve before and remember not liking it, so my expectations were not terribly high watching this. As an added bonus, I remembered essentially none of it either. Now, I don't like to go into a film thinking I won't like it, but if the film is remotely competent or even good, this is an ideal way to watch a movie in my opinion. An okay movie will be a happy surprise.
This was an okay movie. It's a weird movie and I think it's disliked because it doesn't really follow the parameters of what a heist movie is. This doesn't have the fun plans of the first and third entries of the franchise. Like with most heist movies, you'll have a target to steal and most of the movie will be comprising the team, developing the plans, and executing the heist. Doesn't exactly work that way in this movie.
On the one hand, I respect the attempt to not repeat the first movie. This is a vastly different movie than the first movie. On the other hand, this is pure popcorn entertainment and you're not really giving the audience what they want with how this movie is structured. I'm not saying you need to follow the formula exactly, but this is just a very oddly structured movie to be honest.
It's just not as fun of a movie, except for the meta moments, which sure straddle the line between being dumb and actually funny. I still can't decide if I like Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts even though the subterfuge is basically the highlight of the movie. Like the very act of acknowledging this is a movie threatens to trample our ability to get engaged in the movie.
Reportedly, they did this because Julia Roberts was pregnant, and I guess they didn't want the character Tess to be pregnant, so that's how they worked that into the script. It's certainly one way to deal with a pregnancy.
The movie has Brad Pitt's character just so happen to be formerly sleeping with the head detective in charge of catching them and she just so happens to have an ultra famous secretive dad for a thief. Between that and the meta moments, this just kind of breaks down for me. It's entertaining to a point, although the thieves constantly getting caught is not what we want to see.
Anyway, my thoughts on the movie are disjointed and confusing because that's kind of how this movie is, just trying to look cool and get you to ignore all the things that don't make sense. Which is true of all three movies, but it's never been more true than it is for Ocean's Twelve, which is why it's the worst of the three in my opinion.
2/4 stars
Monday, June 15, 2020
Soderbergh Marathon: Part 11
Intro
Ocean's Eleven (2001)
This is not a fair film for me to grade. I have seen this movie many, many times. Sometimes, when I have trouble sleeping, I'll put on a movie I love and the comfort of watching it somehow allows me to fall asleep faster than otherwise. Ocean's Eleven has been that movie in the past for me. (There's been a few though the only other one to immediately come to mind is Pulp Fiction). It's a very fun movie that I wish I could watch for the first time again.
But alas, here I am, watching it with a more critical eye, doing exactly the thing I'd be content with never doing. It's still a movie I would stop and watch if I ever found it channel surfing. (Although oddly enough, that's never happened to me even though this seems like it should be an overplayed movie). So critical me has not ruined the movie for me thankfully.
It did however make me think I was probably wrong with calling this movie obviously worse than Out of Sight. I don't think I said that in so many words, but it's definitely implied in my review of Out of Sight. Trying to look at this movie from a more objective point of view, I'm not entirely sure it is better anymore. I unfortunately watched Out of Sight four years ago, so I don't remember that movie well enough to compare the two.
There's a couple flaws that I noticed upon a rewatch. The first and biggest is Tess as a character, and by that I mean she's not a character. It's not clear why she's with Terry Benedict for starters. The movie is so focused on making Benedict a villain, it forget to give any compelling reason whatsoever why anyone would choose to date him and the reasons that one can come up would make Tess a very shallow character, which I do not think is the movie's intention.
When she chooses to be with Danny, they didn't really do any work to make it seem like that'd be something to do. Leave Benedict? Oh sure, they provided enough reasons well before the deciding blow, but leaving one boyfriend does not mean you need to instantly be with an ex-boyfriend. You are allowed to be single.
Secondly, and this may somewhat be a function of what type of movie this is, but hiding Danny being in on the plan to join Matt Damon's character was dumb. Not to hide it from us, but to hide it from Damon. There's no reason why he shouldn't know that he's being joined in the theft. I know a good heist movie has to have a sleight of hand towards its audience, but it doesn't need to fool the characters themselves too.
The rest of the flaws are basically nitpicks. Or least not stuff I necessarily noticed the first 10 times I watched the movie. So the suspension of disbelief required to believe they could pull off this heist was essentially effective for me. Yeah if you study the movie, you'll notice some things I won't mention, but I don't think most people really thought about the plot holes the first or second times they watched it.
Which goes back to it being unfair to review this film objectively for me. As I watched this several times when I was quite a bit younger, I was more easily fooled presumably by the movie's tricks, whereas I have no idea if I would have noticed the plot holes my first time watching now. Nonetheless, you have to expect plot holes for heist films. It just comes with the territory.
Ocean's Eleven is just about the peak of popcorn blockbuster for me. Which may be confusing because I'm not giving it a perfect score, but I doubt anyone who watches this will come out of it unhappy. Everyone has a good time watching this, and I believe that's ultimately what Soderbergh was trying to do, not make "high art."
3/4 stars
Ocean's Eleven (2001)
This is not a fair film for me to grade. I have seen this movie many, many times. Sometimes, when I have trouble sleeping, I'll put on a movie I love and the comfort of watching it somehow allows me to fall asleep faster than otherwise. Ocean's Eleven has been that movie in the past for me. (There's been a few though the only other one to immediately come to mind is Pulp Fiction). It's a very fun movie that I wish I could watch for the first time again.
But alas, here I am, watching it with a more critical eye, doing exactly the thing I'd be content with never doing. It's still a movie I would stop and watch if I ever found it channel surfing. (Although oddly enough, that's never happened to me even though this seems like it should be an overplayed movie). So critical me has not ruined the movie for me thankfully.
It did however make me think I was probably wrong with calling this movie obviously worse than Out of Sight. I don't think I said that in so many words, but it's definitely implied in my review of Out of Sight. Trying to look at this movie from a more objective point of view, I'm not entirely sure it is better anymore. I unfortunately watched Out of Sight four years ago, so I don't remember that movie well enough to compare the two.
There's a couple flaws that I noticed upon a rewatch. The first and biggest is Tess as a character, and by that I mean she's not a character. It's not clear why she's with Terry Benedict for starters. The movie is so focused on making Benedict a villain, it forget to give any compelling reason whatsoever why anyone would choose to date him and the reasons that one can come up would make Tess a very shallow character, which I do not think is the movie's intention.
When she chooses to be with Danny, they didn't really do any work to make it seem like that'd be something to do. Leave Benedict? Oh sure, they provided enough reasons well before the deciding blow, but leaving one boyfriend does not mean you need to instantly be with an ex-boyfriend. You are allowed to be single.
Secondly, and this may somewhat be a function of what type of movie this is, but hiding Danny being in on the plan to join Matt Damon's character was dumb. Not to hide it from us, but to hide it from Damon. There's no reason why he shouldn't know that he's being joined in the theft. I know a good heist movie has to have a sleight of hand towards its audience, but it doesn't need to fool the characters themselves too.
The rest of the flaws are basically nitpicks. Or least not stuff I necessarily noticed the first 10 times I watched the movie. So the suspension of disbelief required to believe they could pull off this heist was essentially effective for me. Yeah if you study the movie, you'll notice some things I won't mention, but I don't think most people really thought about the plot holes the first or second times they watched it.
Which goes back to it being unfair to review this film objectively for me. As I watched this several times when I was quite a bit younger, I was more easily fooled presumably by the movie's tricks, whereas I have no idea if I would have noticed the plot holes my first time watching now. Nonetheless, you have to expect plot holes for heist films. It just comes with the territory.
Ocean's Eleven is just about the peak of popcorn blockbuster for me. Which may be confusing because I'm not giving it a perfect score, but I doubt anyone who watches this will come out of it unhappy. Everyone has a good time watching this, and I believe that's ultimately what Soderbergh was trying to do, not make "high art."
3/4 stars
Wednesday, June 10, 2020
Soderbergh Marathon: Part 10
Intro
Kafka (1991)
Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989) was an unexpected success, with a budget of only $1.2 million and a box office return of $36.7 million. The screenplay, written by Steven Soderbergh himself, was nominated for an Academy Award. As an independent movie, it also cleaned up at the Film Independent Spirit Awards, winning Best Feature, Best Director, Best Female Lead, and Best Supporting Actress. Needless to say, Soderbergh was allowed to do whatever he wanted for his second feature.
Whatever he wanted turned out to be Kafka, which is supposedly a sort of biopic through a Kafkaesque atmosphere. I say supposedly, because I am completely unfamiliar with Franz Kafka, the German writer who became famous posthumously, but was completely unknown when he lived. I feel I'm at a bit of a disadvantage for this.
Of course, his job working in insurance while privately writing on the side with no fanfare was how Kafka spent his life. I very much doubt the conclusion of this movie has anything to do with his life, but is probably lifted from one or more of his novels. Again, I wish I had more familiarity with the author himself or the material he wrote. As such, I do not feel like I'm the target audience for this movie.
Taken on its own terms, this is a very weird movie. Again I can only assume it has the spirit of a Kafka novel. The majority of the movie is in black-and-white and boy is it a beautiful looking movie. I'd be inclined to recommend this purely for how good the movie looks. The cinematography by Walt Lloyd, also his cinematography for Sex, Lies and Videotape, is excellent. He won an Independent Spirit Award for his work for this movie. Curiously, it's his last movie as a cinematographer for Soderbergh.
This is the first movie of Soderbergh's where I didn't really like the acting, although I'm not going to blame the actors. Jeremy Irons plays Kafka, and he's competent, but he's also the straight man to everything weird that's going around him. Soderbergh clearly intentionally wants some of his actors to be way over the top at acting and I don't know why. You'll know if this is for you near immediately, as the very first scene acts as sort of a teaser to unfold the mystery and a guy is being chased and is very exaggerated with his movements.
Then there's "comedy" which consists mostly of twin brothers that don't look alike who are engaging in the broadest comedy imaginable. It's not a major part of the movie, but it's very weird. And not particularly funny to be honest. A reviewer said it was "broad British comedy" so if you happen to know what that looks like, that's in this movie for some odd reason.
This is a movie that has its quirk for reasons, not just for the sake of weird quirks, and yet it's distracting all the same. This is a movie that probably works very well if you're on the movie's wavelength. It makes sense that this is considered a cult film to me. Myself, I wasn't on the movie's wavelength, so I didn't like it that much.
He really swung for the fences on his second movie, and while it didn't work, it did help indicate where his career was headed, constant curveballs in what type of movies he makes.
2/4 stars
Kafka (1991)
Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989) was an unexpected success, with a budget of only $1.2 million and a box office return of $36.7 million. The screenplay, written by Steven Soderbergh himself, was nominated for an Academy Award. As an independent movie, it also cleaned up at the Film Independent Spirit Awards, winning Best Feature, Best Director, Best Female Lead, and Best Supporting Actress. Needless to say, Soderbergh was allowed to do whatever he wanted for his second feature.
Whatever he wanted turned out to be Kafka, which is supposedly a sort of biopic through a Kafkaesque atmosphere. I say supposedly, because I am completely unfamiliar with Franz Kafka, the German writer who became famous posthumously, but was completely unknown when he lived. I feel I'm at a bit of a disadvantage for this.
Of course, his job working in insurance while privately writing on the side with no fanfare was how Kafka spent his life. I very much doubt the conclusion of this movie has anything to do with his life, but is probably lifted from one or more of his novels. Again, I wish I had more familiarity with the author himself or the material he wrote. As such, I do not feel like I'm the target audience for this movie.
Taken on its own terms, this is a very weird movie. Again I can only assume it has the spirit of a Kafka novel. The majority of the movie is in black-and-white and boy is it a beautiful looking movie. I'd be inclined to recommend this purely for how good the movie looks. The cinematography by Walt Lloyd, also his cinematography for Sex, Lies and Videotape, is excellent. He won an Independent Spirit Award for his work for this movie. Curiously, it's his last movie as a cinematographer for Soderbergh.
This is the first movie of Soderbergh's where I didn't really like the acting, although I'm not going to blame the actors. Jeremy Irons plays Kafka, and he's competent, but he's also the straight man to everything weird that's going around him. Soderbergh clearly intentionally wants some of his actors to be way over the top at acting and I don't know why. You'll know if this is for you near immediately, as the very first scene acts as sort of a teaser to unfold the mystery and a guy is being chased and is very exaggerated with his movements.
Then there's "comedy" which consists mostly of twin brothers that don't look alike who are engaging in the broadest comedy imaginable. It's not a major part of the movie, but it's very weird. And not particularly funny to be honest. A reviewer said it was "broad British comedy" so if you happen to know what that looks like, that's in this movie for some odd reason.
This is a movie that has its quirk for reasons, not just for the sake of weird quirks, and yet it's distracting all the same. This is a movie that probably works very well if you're on the movie's wavelength. It makes sense that this is considered a cult film to me. Myself, I wasn't on the movie's wavelength, so I didn't like it that much.
He really swung for the fences on his second movie, and while it didn't work, it did help indicate where his career was headed, constant curveballs in what type of movies he makes.
2/4 stars
Monday, June 8, 2020
Soderbergh: Part 9
Intro
Erin Brokovich (2000)
By my count, Steven Soderbergh has made six movies that I would call a box office hit, although it's possible I'm missing a movie or two seeing as he made 30 movies and I'm not fact checking this. I have now seen all but Magic Mike. Three of the movies are the Ocean movies, where the intention is to make a fun heist movie and nothing more. Out of Sight is trying to be a fun crime comedy and while I haven't seen Magic Mike yet, that movie is I assume trying to be a fun stripper movie.
Erin Brokovich, while not exactly unfun, seems to break the mold of a typical Soderbergh box office hit. He's clearly trying to make good movies that are also fun, but these are movies that don't pretend they are anything more than what they are. They are fun escapism movies and Soderbergh knows that.
This movie on the other hand, I'm actually surprised this ended up making as much money as it did. I think aside from the Ocean movies, this is his next most successful movie at the box office. And it's... fine?
Here's where my expectations have possibly been unfairly set by Soderbergh himself, but I'm now on movie #10 and the previous nine have all felt like Soderbergh trying to make a different type of movie. With Erin Brokovich, we have the Oscar bait movie.
That's probably unfair, but this reeks of Oscar bait to me. I do like some Oscar bait movies, and I think if I had no idea Soderbergh directed this, I'd probably like it more, but I kind of thought he wouldn't make one of these movies.
I think I would have liked this movie more if Erin Brokovich wasn't played by Julia Roberts. I'm not saying her performance is bad, but her showy performance is why this seems like an Oscar bait movie to me. Get Julia an Oscar! It worked of course. But I never felt like I was watching anybody but Julia Roberts trying to win an Oscar.
It doesn't really help that this is a story that's been told before. Another unfair thing going against this movie from my perspective - before I wrote this, but after I saw the movie, I watched Dark Waters. They are basically the same story, but Dark Waters is told better and is a better movie. This is a good reminder that sometimes the context of you watching a movie can really impact what you think of the movie and the context for me watching Erin Brokovich did it no favors.
I would love to get responses to this to tell me I'm being unfair, but this just straight up seem like a movie designed to get Julia Roberts an Oscar and I was always aware of that when watching. I honestly do wish I liked this more, but this is the first huge disappointment for me, which granted it was one of the few movies I had expectations for too.
2/4 stars
Erin Brokovich (2000)
By my count, Steven Soderbergh has made six movies that I would call a box office hit, although it's possible I'm missing a movie or two seeing as he made 30 movies and I'm not fact checking this. I have now seen all but Magic Mike. Three of the movies are the Ocean movies, where the intention is to make a fun heist movie and nothing more. Out of Sight is trying to be a fun crime comedy and while I haven't seen Magic Mike yet, that movie is I assume trying to be a fun stripper movie.
Erin Brokovich, while not exactly unfun, seems to break the mold of a typical Soderbergh box office hit. He's clearly trying to make good movies that are also fun, but these are movies that don't pretend they are anything more than what they are. They are fun escapism movies and Soderbergh knows that.
This movie on the other hand, I'm actually surprised this ended up making as much money as it did. I think aside from the Ocean movies, this is his next most successful movie at the box office. And it's... fine?
Here's where my expectations have possibly been unfairly set by Soderbergh himself, but I'm now on movie #10 and the previous nine have all felt like Soderbergh trying to make a different type of movie. With Erin Brokovich, we have the Oscar bait movie.
That's probably unfair, but this reeks of Oscar bait to me. I do like some Oscar bait movies, and I think if I had no idea Soderbergh directed this, I'd probably like it more, but I kind of thought he wouldn't make one of these movies.
I think I would have liked this movie more if Erin Brokovich wasn't played by Julia Roberts. I'm not saying her performance is bad, but her showy performance is why this seems like an Oscar bait movie to me. Get Julia an Oscar! It worked of course. But I never felt like I was watching anybody but Julia Roberts trying to win an Oscar.
It doesn't really help that this is a story that's been told before. Another unfair thing going against this movie from my perspective - before I wrote this, but after I saw the movie, I watched Dark Waters. They are basically the same story, but Dark Waters is told better and is a better movie. This is a good reminder that sometimes the context of you watching a movie can really impact what you think of the movie and the context for me watching Erin Brokovich did it no favors.
I would love to get responses to this to tell me I'm being unfair, but this just straight up seem like a movie designed to get Julia Roberts an Oscar and I was always aware of that when watching. I honestly do wish I liked this more, but this is the first huge disappointment for me, which granted it was one of the few movies I had expectations for too.
2/4 stars
Thursday, June 4, 2020
Soderbergh Maraton: Part 8
Intro
Bubble (2005)
Soderbergh is the perfect director for this feature. I want to possibly try my hand at other directors once I'm through with Soderbergh's absurdly high number of films, but I'm afraid that it will just be too much of the same with other directors. Or even the same at all. As of now, Soderbergh has not made a single film that is remotely like the others. Nine films in, all are drastically different.
It doesn't get much more different than Bubble, which seems more like an experiment than an actual movie. The best way to describe this movie is to simply tell you how it's made. Soderbergh went to West Virginia and scouted non-actors to be in this movie. The lead actor was found working in a drive-thru at KFC.
After that, there was a "script" which was just an outline. And the non-actors had to improvise the dialogue on the basis of the outline. The idea, in theory, was to create a naturalistic and realistic feeling movie. It's... sometimes successful at that?
The problem, as far as I see it, is its the worst of both worlds. At times, it does feel realistic, but it's also painfully boring. There's a reason why most of our lives wouldn't make good movies. The entire movie is mostly conversations of things that are just simply not interesting. And when it doesn't feel realistic, it really does feel like you're watching non-actors who are not skilled in improv trying to improv.
Soderbergh planned to film six movies like this and as far as I know this ended up being the only one. So I'd called it a failed experiment. Thankfully, the movie is astonishingly short. Which makes sense. What could be called the plot could be written in one sentence and doesn't happen until 45 minutes into the movie.
Roger Ebert loved this movie and god rest his soul, but I do not agree with him. But if you trust Ebert's opinion, go ahead and search for his review of it, and maybe give it a shot after that. Myself? I can't recommend this movie unfortunately. It's the first true dud for me in this marathon, but at least it's a dud trying something different.
1.5/4 stars
Bubble (2005)
Soderbergh is the perfect director for this feature. I want to possibly try my hand at other directors once I'm through with Soderbergh's absurdly high number of films, but I'm afraid that it will just be too much of the same with other directors. Or even the same at all. As of now, Soderbergh has not made a single film that is remotely like the others. Nine films in, all are drastically different.
It doesn't get much more different than Bubble, which seems more like an experiment than an actual movie. The best way to describe this movie is to simply tell you how it's made. Soderbergh went to West Virginia and scouted non-actors to be in this movie. The lead actor was found working in a drive-thru at KFC.
After that, there was a "script" which was just an outline. And the non-actors had to improvise the dialogue on the basis of the outline. The idea, in theory, was to create a naturalistic and realistic feeling movie. It's... sometimes successful at that?
The problem, as far as I see it, is its the worst of both worlds. At times, it does feel realistic, but it's also painfully boring. There's a reason why most of our lives wouldn't make good movies. The entire movie is mostly conversations of things that are just simply not interesting. And when it doesn't feel realistic, it really does feel like you're watching non-actors who are not skilled in improv trying to improv.
Soderbergh planned to film six movies like this and as far as I know this ended up being the only one. So I'd called it a failed experiment. Thankfully, the movie is astonishingly short. Which makes sense. What could be called the plot could be written in one sentence and doesn't happen until 45 minutes into the movie.
Roger Ebert loved this movie and god rest his soul, but I do not agree with him. But if you trust Ebert's opinion, go ahead and search for his review of it, and maybe give it a shot after that. Myself? I can't recommend this movie unfortunately. It's the first true dud for me in this marathon, but at least it's a dud trying something different.
1.5/4 stars
Monday, June 1, 2020
Soderbergh Marathon: Part 7
Intro
The Good German (2006)
Much like I am, it is very clear that Steven Soderbergh loves film noirs. Much like him, I am sure if I was a director who could do anything I wanted, I would attempt to make a film noir myself, although I would probably go more in the direction of a movie like Brick than Soderbergh's approach. The Good German is Soderbergh's ode to film noirs.
Unfortunately, it's not a great movie. It's a matter of style over substance, which actually I wouldn't think would be a huge issue in a film noir movie. In the best of them, there's substance, but clearly the defining aspect of a film noir is the style. Soderbergh painstakingly and lovingly creates a movie that probably could have been made in the 40s.
Or least he attempts to make it look like it could have been made in the 40s, in the way it looks and the way he shoots the movie. It's black-and-white of course. This is clearly not a movie that gets made without George Clooney starring in it. How many black-and-white film noirs are being made nowadays?
As far as the casting is concerned, George Clooney and Cate Blanchett seem like the could fit right in with as 40s movie stars. Blanchett in particular definitely seems like she would have been a Gene Tierney or Lauren Bacall if she was born in a different time period. Clooney doesn't necessarily fit the style of a film noir hero in the same way that Blanchett does for a femme fatale, but his style of acting would probably work then too.
The same cannot be said for Tobey Maguire, who is just shockingly miscast in this movie. I don't want to put the entire blame for this movie on him being woefully out of place, but it's possible an actor better suited for this role would make this a good movie. That sounds like hyperbole, but he's the narrator for the first third of the movie and it just gets the movie off on the wrong foot.
That's the other thing. The movie, for some reason, changes perspectives and it was not a good decision. There's an intriguing murder mystery that happens that is completely ruined by changing the narrator. You want to know who committed the murder and the movie reveals it in a very unsatisfying way. Just kind of bluntly tells us instead of a discovery.
Ultimately, this movie is worth watching for one thing: how much Soderbergh is able to adhere to looking like a film noir from the 1940s. But that's not a great reason to watch the movie. Just watch a film noir from the 1940s instead.
2/4 stars
The Good German (2006)
Much like I am, it is very clear that Steven Soderbergh loves film noirs. Much like him, I am sure if I was a director who could do anything I wanted, I would attempt to make a film noir myself, although I would probably go more in the direction of a movie like Brick than Soderbergh's approach. The Good German is Soderbergh's ode to film noirs.
Unfortunately, it's not a great movie. It's a matter of style over substance, which actually I wouldn't think would be a huge issue in a film noir movie. In the best of them, there's substance, but clearly the defining aspect of a film noir is the style. Soderbergh painstakingly and lovingly creates a movie that probably could have been made in the 40s.
Or least he attempts to make it look like it could have been made in the 40s, in the way it looks and the way he shoots the movie. It's black-and-white of course. This is clearly not a movie that gets made without George Clooney starring in it. How many black-and-white film noirs are being made nowadays?
As far as the casting is concerned, George Clooney and Cate Blanchett seem like the could fit right in with as 40s movie stars. Blanchett in particular definitely seems like she would have been a Gene Tierney or Lauren Bacall if she was born in a different time period. Clooney doesn't necessarily fit the style of a film noir hero in the same way that Blanchett does for a femme fatale, but his style of acting would probably work then too.
The same cannot be said for Tobey Maguire, who is just shockingly miscast in this movie. I don't want to put the entire blame for this movie on him being woefully out of place, but it's possible an actor better suited for this role would make this a good movie. That sounds like hyperbole, but he's the narrator for the first third of the movie and it just gets the movie off on the wrong foot.
That's the other thing. The movie, for some reason, changes perspectives and it was not a good decision. There's an intriguing murder mystery that happens that is completely ruined by changing the narrator. You want to know who committed the murder and the movie reveals it in a very unsatisfying way. Just kind of bluntly tells us instead of a discovery.
Ultimately, this movie is worth watching for one thing: how much Soderbergh is able to adhere to looking like a film noir from the 1940s. But that's not a great reason to watch the movie. Just watch a film noir from the 1940s instead.
2/4 stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)