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
Showing posts with label George Clooney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Clooney. Show all posts
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
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
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
Thursday, May 14, 2020
The Soderbergh Experience: Part 3
Intro
Out of Sight (1998)
Once again, I am watching all of Steven Soderbergh movies out of order. This is a practical matter as not all of his movies are currently available to me, but I decided to make the most of it and get creative with how I watched his movies. I have a method for how I'm picking his movies, but it's mostly just random, so no need to explain my choices.
When I watched Out of Sight, two movies immediately came to mind. The first is Get Shorty, the 1995 movie that predates this. The comparison makes more sense when you see who is behind the movie. For starters, both movies are based off an Elmore Leonard novel so both have complicated plots, inept criminals, and one man above the fray with a love interest already in a relationship. Leonard pretty much believes criminals are criminals for a reason and that they will fuck up their plans by their own doing. You see that here.
The screenplay was also written by the same guy, Scott Franks. Franks appears to be a very good writer, with an unorthodox amount of well-reviewed movies in his resume. He does have the good fortune of working with good directors. He's worked with Kenneth Branaugh, Steven Spielberg, and James Mangold in addition to Soderbergh. It's possible his movies are good because of the directors but the directors also picked his screenplays. His lone writing-directing effort appears to be a solid movie so I'm inclined to call him a good writer. The movie was also produced by Danny Devito, who starred in Get Shorty, and Barry Sonnenfield, who directed it. (Both produced Get Shorty too) So it's not exactly a comparison I make that comes out of left field.
The other movie that came to mind was Ocean's Eleven. This movie almost seemed like a warmup to me. Now I'm just going by memory, but it seems to me that Ocean's Eleven is a much more polished bank story than Out of Sight. Here he seems slightly restrained by the tone of Get Shorty. That's not a bad thing. I loved Get Shorty and it mimicked the same tone really well. But it did sort of have the effect that I was watching a lesser Get Shorty and a less fun Ocean's Eleven. The latter is not fair at all since it came after this movie I admit.
Obviously the main culprit behind the Ocean Eleven comparison is Clooney. He plays virtually the same character in both movies. Once again, this seems like more of a warmup to Danny Ocean to me. Clooney had perfected this style by Ocean's Eleven. He's far from bad in Out of Sight though. He goes a long way towards justifying a marshal's decision to essentially forget her duties for him for at least a night. Don Cheadle is also in this movie, but he definitely plays a different character. Here he's kind of a stereotype - he's even got a Tupac style bandana on his head when in prison - and in Ocean's, I don't know he's French or something. I'm really not sure what with the accent he chose to go with for that movie.
The cast is pretty incredible including a surprisingly effective turn by Jennifer Lopez. I say surprising because I didn't think she was all that good of an actress - in fact when I've stumbled on this movie before I turned it off because I didn't imagine it was good mostly because she was in it. I am admittedly not basing this off a large sample of movies I've seen in her, but when you form an impression, it's not always fair. It's also surprising because if you'd describe Karen Sisco as a character to me, Lopez is pretty fucking far from how I'd imagine her. Carlo Gugino, who later played her in a quickly cancelled TV series called Karen Sisco, is more what I would have imagined. (It actually kind of seems like near perfect casting. Too bad it got cancelled so quickly)
Clooney and Cheadle are both as great as they usually are, even if they spur in me images of what I think is a better movie. (Kind of argue to argue Cheadle is better in Ocean's just for that accent, but Clooney is definitely at his best in Ocean's so it's not a comparison that favors this movie). This is just a movie with a bunch of solid performances from people who usually give them. Ving Rhames, Catherine Keener, Dennis Farina, and Steve Zahn all play their parts with their usual talent. I have to confess I didn't recognize Albert Brooks until halfway through the movie which is kind of incredible since it's Albert Brooks! So I'd say he disappeared in the role (that could just be me of course).
I hate to keep giving every movie of Soderbergh's the same grade, but my main complaint of "it's not as good as two other movies I absolutely love" is not really a complaint, so much as an acknowledgement that it's not going to get the perfect grade. Three movies, 3 stars for all of them.
3 stars out of 4
Out of Sight (1998)
Once again, I am watching all of Steven Soderbergh movies out of order. This is a practical matter as not all of his movies are currently available to me, but I decided to make the most of it and get creative with how I watched his movies. I have a method for how I'm picking his movies, but it's mostly just random, so no need to explain my choices.
When I watched Out of Sight, two movies immediately came to mind. The first is Get Shorty, the 1995 movie that predates this. The comparison makes more sense when you see who is behind the movie. For starters, both movies are based off an Elmore Leonard novel so both have complicated plots, inept criminals, and one man above the fray with a love interest already in a relationship. Leonard pretty much believes criminals are criminals for a reason and that they will fuck up their plans by their own doing. You see that here.
The screenplay was also written by the same guy, Scott Franks. Franks appears to be a very good writer, with an unorthodox amount of well-reviewed movies in his resume. He does have the good fortune of working with good directors. He's worked with Kenneth Branaugh, Steven Spielberg, and James Mangold in addition to Soderbergh. It's possible his movies are good because of the directors but the directors also picked his screenplays. His lone writing-directing effort appears to be a solid movie so I'm inclined to call him a good writer. The movie was also produced by Danny Devito, who starred in Get Shorty, and Barry Sonnenfield, who directed it. (Both produced Get Shorty too) So it's not exactly a comparison I make that comes out of left field.
The other movie that came to mind was Ocean's Eleven. This movie almost seemed like a warmup to me. Now I'm just going by memory, but it seems to me that Ocean's Eleven is a much more polished bank story than Out of Sight. Here he seems slightly restrained by the tone of Get Shorty. That's not a bad thing. I loved Get Shorty and it mimicked the same tone really well. But it did sort of have the effect that I was watching a lesser Get Shorty and a less fun Ocean's Eleven. The latter is not fair at all since it came after this movie I admit.
Obviously the main culprit behind the Ocean Eleven comparison is Clooney. He plays virtually the same character in both movies. Once again, this seems like more of a warmup to Danny Ocean to me. Clooney had perfected this style by Ocean's Eleven. He's far from bad in Out of Sight though. He goes a long way towards justifying a marshal's decision to essentially forget her duties for him for at least a night. Don Cheadle is also in this movie, but he definitely plays a different character. Here he's kind of a stereotype - he's even got a Tupac style bandana on his head when in prison - and in Ocean's, I don't know he's French or something. I'm really not sure what with the accent he chose to go with for that movie.
The cast is pretty incredible including a surprisingly effective turn by Jennifer Lopez. I say surprising because I didn't think she was all that good of an actress - in fact when I've stumbled on this movie before I turned it off because I didn't imagine it was good mostly because she was in it. I am admittedly not basing this off a large sample of movies I've seen in her, but when you form an impression, it's not always fair. It's also surprising because if you'd describe Karen Sisco as a character to me, Lopez is pretty fucking far from how I'd imagine her. Carlo Gugino, who later played her in a quickly cancelled TV series called Karen Sisco, is more what I would have imagined. (It actually kind of seems like near perfect casting. Too bad it got cancelled so quickly)
Clooney and Cheadle are both as great as they usually are, even if they spur in me images of what I think is a better movie. (Kind of argue to argue Cheadle is better in Ocean's just for that accent, but Clooney is definitely at his best in Ocean's so it's not a comparison that favors this movie). This is just a movie with a bunch of solid performances from people who usually give them. Ving Rhames, Catherine Keener, Dennis Farina, and Steve Zahn all play their parts with their usual talent. I have to confess I didn't recognize Albert Brooks until halfway through the movie which is kind of incredible since it's Albert Brooks! So I'd say he disappeared in the role (that could just be me of course).
I hate to keep giving every movie of Soderbergh's the same grade, but my main complaint of "it's not as good as two other movies I absolutely love" is not really a complaint, so much as an acknowledgement that it's not going to get the perfect grade. Three movies, 3 stars for all of them.
3 stars out of 4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)