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
No comments:
Post a Comment