Intro
Full Frontal (2002)
Full Frontal is a very weird movie. It's one of those movies where Soderbergh is clearly experimenting with the process of filmmaking. As such, I don't like it! He shoots most of the movie on videotape and by god does it look awful.
Another one of the warning signs with Full Frontal is that it's a comedy, and Soderbergh is not especially good at making comedies. Having humor in his movie sure. But making a movie that can be called a comedy? Not so much.
Unlike his other experimental movies, this one actually features name actors. Ton of them in fact. Julia Roberts plays a reporter who interviews Blair Underwood, who is a famous actor. And in the middle of this interview at one point, cut is yelled, Julia Roberts takes off her wig, and is a famous actress not named Julia Roberts. So Blair and Julia are operating in a fictional movie where most of what we see is that movie, but they're actually acting.
Confused? I'll make things more confusing for you. In whatever universe the movie operates in, Blair is an actor who acts alongside Brad Pitt being directed by David Fincher. So she's interviewing him behind the scenes of a movie, and then the movie stops, and lets us know that both Julia Roberts and Blair Underwood are acting in a different movie we see the behind the scenes of.
There's also Linda, played by Mary McCormack, who has never dated someone for longer three months and is looking for love. There's Catherine Keener, who's married to David Hyde Pierce, and they are clearly on their way to a divorce, as Keener cheats on Pierce's character, who knows it. Pierce rambles on aimlessly to many different women in this movie.
There's Enrico Colotani, who plays a playwright, and he directs Nicky Katt, who plays Hitler in some sort of comical take on Hitler that is never really funny. And then there's David Duchovny, who plays a guy who invites everyone to a party, which kind of ends up going nowhere. The movie sets up the party as if it's going be this big endgame, but the plot deflates.
So what you have here is seemingly pointless script where the movie tries its hand at satire and I get the feeling you almost have to be in the movie business to understand that wavelength. Like imagine The Player, but incomprehensibly aimless. The Player had a plot for all its winking nods to Hollywood few of the people watching understand. This doesn't.
And then you have Soderbergh filming most of it on grainy videotape for some reason. I imagine he has a reason for it, I just don't understand it. Even when I've disagreed with the method for how he shoots, I understand the intention. This one? I don't. Basically nothing in this movie works, except that every actor is a professional and does their job. But good actors can only do so much with an empty script and ugly visuals.
1/4 stars
Showing posts with label Brad Pitt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brad Pitt. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)