Intro
Contagion (2011)
When I started this project, I certainly didn't think this movie would become shockingly relevant. Indeed, the subject matter of the movie is a pandemic that sweeps the world, although the pandemic that sweeps the world of Contagion seems to be considerably worse and with like a 25% death rate, which I would never walk outside if that was the death rate right now.
So the movie was not as difficult a watch as I thought it might be - watching a movie about a pandemic while a pandemic is literally happening could in theory be a tough watch. But I think I watched this at the right time. We still don't know a lot about the virus, but I think it's safe to say that the virus in Contagion seems infinitely worse. Had I watched this when it was early March, yeah it might have been a worse experience.
The movie is very economical about its approach - this happens, then this happens, then this happens. There's no wasted subplot. This is how the virus starts, you see how it spreads easily, you see the reaction, and you see the eventual cure. Soderbergh and writer Scott Z Burns took painstaking measures to make the movie seem accurate.
The movie mostly succeeds and in fact part of the reason it doesn't completely succeed is because Jude Law's conspiracy character happens to be the fucking president of the United States. Yeah I'm sure if I watched this in 2011, I might take issue with his character, but holy shit was this character's involvement prescient.
This movie doesn't really require big name actors, but one of the benefits of hiring such actors is that you don't need to work as hard to make the death shock you. I know I was surprised when Gwyneth Paltrow's character dies ten minutes into the movie. She gets more screentime through flashbacks, but that's a hell of a role to give to an A lister. It wasn't the first time an A list actor died surprisingly early in the movie either.
The vaccine seems to come a bit too quickly in this movie as well. The chief advisor to the movie said it's possible, but there's talk of the vaccine being widely available as early as December and January and that's wildly optimistic. The vaccine gets made in like 20 days in this movie. Not a huge issue, and I'm not really sure how you'd go about making a vaccine that takes months to work in a movie like this.
As far as the actors, they aren't asked to do much, which is I guess why you hire the professionals. The movie is essentially a series of plot points told in an entertaining fashion, so the actors need to act like real people. They do that successfully. Kate Winslet is a standout, but of course Matt Damon is the "lead" if you had to pick one, although it's clearly an ensemble movie. Laurence Fishburne is the other "lead" so to speak, and he gets a bit more to do than the rest, and he's more than capable. Then there's the appropriately despicable Jude Law character, which Law doesn't overplay, he just lets the sliminess speak for itself.
I also have to give credit to the Soderbergh for making shots of the poles in buses and subway trains look as threatening and scary as any killer with a knife. All I know is that I will be wary of what I touch when I feel sick when this pandemic passes, because it really is easy to pass this stuff if you go out in public.
Anyway, Contagion holds up. It seems pretty realistic. You hear terms in this movie like social distancing that are all over the place now, which gave me a very weird feeling. Like that's how realistic this movie feels at times. If you're feeling apprehensive about watching it due to now, the only real frightening, hard to watch part is the Jude Law character. But otherwise, it's an easier watch than you'd think and that's a credit to Soderbergh's direction.
3.5/4 stars
Showing posts with label Matt Damon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Matt Damon. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 1, 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
Tuesday, May 19, 2020
Soderbergh Marathon: Part 4
Intro
The Informant! (2009)
This is a movie I appreciated more than liked. It's a weird movie. It's a weird movie with a purpose though. It's not being weird for weird's sake, it's being weird to delve you into the main character's mental state. Like I completely understand what Steven Soderbergh is going for in this movie and conceptually it works. The buildup of Mark Whitacre going from seemingly innocuous to losing his mind is well done.
And yet. I found it difficult to like this movie. This is a character study on a character with a mental disease and as such, it's singularly focused on that one character. I think some better characterization on the wife would have went a long way, as she's just a doting wife who doesn't really seem to function as a character. It's based on a real person and in fact was based on a book, a book which I don't imagine focuses on the wife all that often. So the wife was real and maybe they tread lightly there since they didn't want to completely make up a new character there.
Matt Damon is excellent in The Informant! and is responsible for much of the movie's tone. Speaking of tone, I think the score also largely sets the tone. In some cases, I think the score was too wacky. From reviews, I've been able to gather it's a throwback score, but it's still really "knock you over the head this is wacky" which got old at times. Sometimes, it worked, sometimes you wish the movie would tone it down.
Anyway, I think I may like this more on second watch, since a large part of the movie, you're just in the dark about what the director is trying to do. For now, I have to grade it on having watched it once though.
2.5/4 stars
Side Effects (2013)
The best way I can describe Side Effects is that it reminds me of a bad thriller movie, except everyone involved in making it is very good at their jobs. The plot in this is just as convoluted and as ludicrous as those bad thriller movies, it's just so well made that it kind of fools you into maintaining the illusion necessary to buy into the plot.
I had seen Side Effects before shortly after it became available on Redbox back in 2013. In fact, it was the very first Soderbergh movie I watched the same year that came out. I watched one more of his movies in the same year (Logan Lucky), but otherwise I've never seen any of his movies even remotely close to when they were released, a fact that will remain true until I watch two of his 2019 movies in this marathon.
Back on target, part of the reason this movie is able to work as well as it is is an A+ cast. Rooney Mara plays a depressed wife to a man played by Channing Tatum, who is getting out of prison for the first time in four years. She seeks treatment from a psychiatrist played by Jude Law. Catherine Zeta-Jones also appears in this movie in an important part.
Ultimately, I enjoyed this more the first time I watched it, which makes sense. I think the convoluted plot is just a little harder to buy the second time around, plus you know what's going to happen, so the tension isn't as high. Although six years ago was a long enough time ago that I didn't remember the specifics, so I was still invested in the story. Kind of a tricky grade for me, so I'll just give you my current grade and what I'm guessing my 2013 grade would have been.
2013 grade: 3 stars
Current: 2.5 stars
The Informant! (2009)
This is a movie I appreciated more than liked. It's a weird movie. It's a weird movie with a purpose though. It's not being weird for weird's sake, it's being weird to delve you into the main character's mental state. Like I completely understand what Steven Soderbergh is going for in this movie and conceptually it works. The buildup of Mark Whitacre going from seemingly innocuous to losing his mind is well done.
And yet. I found it difficult to like this movie. This is a character study on a character with a mental disease and as such, it's singularly focused on that one character. I think some better characterization on the wife would have went a long way, as she's just a doting wife who doesn't really seem to function as a character. It's based on a real person and in fact was based on a book, a book which I don't imagine focuses on the wife all that often. So the wife was real and maybe they tread lightly there since they didn't want to completely make up a new character there.
Matt Damon is excellent in The Informant! and is responsible for much of the movie's tone. Speaking of tone, I think the score also largely sets the tone. In some cases, I think the score was too wacky. From reviews, I've been able to gather it's a throwback score, but it's still really "knock you over the head this is wacky" which got old at times. Sometimes, it worked, sometimes you wish the movie would tone it down.
Anyway, I think I may like this more on second watch, since a large part of the movie, you're just in the dark about what the director is trying to do. For now, I have to grade it on having watched it once though.
2.5/4 stars
Side Effects (2013)
The best way I can describe Side Effects is that it reminds me of a bad thriller movie, except everyone involved in making it is very good at their jobs. The plot in this is just as convoluted and as ludicrous as those bad thriller movies, it's just so well made that it kind of fools you into maintaining the illusion necessary to buy into the plot.
I had seen Side Effects before shortly after it became available on Redbox back in 2013. In fact, it was the very first Soderbergh movie I watched the same year that came out. I watched one more of his movies in the same year (Logan Lucky), but otherwise I've never seen any of his movies even remotely close to when they were released, a fact that will remain true until I watch two of his 2019 movies in this marathon.
Back on target, part of the reason this movie is able to work as well as it is is an A+ cast. Rooney Mara plays a depressed wife to a man played by Channing Tatum, who is getting out of prison for the first time in four years. She seeks treatment from a psychiatrist played by Jude Law. Catherine Zeta-Jones also appears in this movie in an important part.
Ultimately, I enjoyed this more the first time I watched it, which makes sense. I think the convoluted plot is just a little harder to buy the second time around, plus you know what's going to happen, so the tension isn't as high. Although six years ago was a long enough time ago that I didn't remember the specifics, so I was still invested in the story. Kind of a tricky grade for me, so I'll just give you my current grade and what I'm guessing my 2013 grade would have been.
2013 grade: 3 stars
Current: 2.5 stars
Monday, May 11, 2020
Soderbergh Marathon: Part 2
Intro
Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989)
Behind the Candelabra (2013)
When I started this project, I assumed that I would watch his movies in order. Due to his second and third movies being unavailable to me (among a couple others), I was stuck until I realized I did not need to watch his movies in order. So I decided to watch his last movie after his first movie. Of course by the time I have actually posted this thing, this is no longer his last movie. But it was at the time of this writing to give you an idea how long ago I wrote this.
Behind the Candelabra is a biopic TV movie, but to define it as a TV movie is slightly inaccurate. For all intents and purposes, it's a movie that came out in theaters. I only mention that because a TV movie conspires images of shoddy production values, second-rate actors, and forgettable fare. The slogan "It's not TV, it's HBO" is mostly accurate. HBO Films has released a few interesting biopics in the past few years (Bessie, Get on Up) and Behind the Candelabra is one of them.
If I wasn't doing this project, I would never have watched this movie. In order to watch a biopic, you either need to find the main subject compelling or you do it for the performances. That's pretty much it. I am not altogether that interested in Liberace's life. I didn't see him play - he died before I was even born. I don't listen to his music or watch his TV appearances or whatever else he did to become famous.
Soderbergh set out to not make the typical biopic film when he made Behind the Candelabra. He was in talks with Douglas back when he was making Traffic in 2000, but couldn't find an appropriate angle. In 2008, he decided to adapt the book by Scott Thorson as an angle for the movie and tapped Richard LaGravenese to write the screenplay. LaGravenese was a seasoned veteran of writing movies, having written 13 movies by that point. He doesn't seem to be a particularly good writer. He doesn't seem bad either. But his filmography is full of mediocre movies or worse. So I'm intrigued by that choice. Admirably, both Douglas and Damon signed on quickly and stuck with the movie as Soderbergh struggled to get it made over the next five years (because it was "too gay"). HBO Films picked it up and they made it for $23 million over a 30-day period.
To Soderbergh's credit, this isn't really a biopic film. It is and it isn't. It's about the relationship between Liberace and his much, much younger companion of about five years. This film was clearly made with a love for Liberace. There are a few scenes of just Liberace playing in front of a crowd. It's what drew Scott into his feelings for Liberace in the first place.
The true stars of this movie are the people behind the makeup department. Making a 44-year-old Matt Damon look not ridiculous as a 17-year-old is truly impressive work. It's not explicitly stated that he's 17 which probably helps. He definitely looks noticeably younger than normal and with certain mannerisms, Damon is convincing as at least being naive and young, which is basically all that is needed. Scott also gets plastic surgery which had the effect of making him look much older and the age differential is much less distracting. Douglas also had considerable makeup put on him throughout the film to make him credible as the Liberace. More than most films, makeup was especially important for believability.
If you're not interested in Liberace - and he's a colorful, larger-than-life character so I imagine I might be in the minority in my disinterest - then the performances are enough to make it worth watching. I did not know Douglas was capable of the performance he gives here. It's not that I thought he was a bad actor. He kind of reminded me of Tom Cruise in that he gives good performances but you never forget he's Michael Douglas. But I have only seen a small portion of his films so that preconception was clearly inaccurate. Much like Damon needed the mannerisms to make himself believable as a young guy, Douglas had the arguably much more difficult task of needing to have the mannerisms of a legend. Put it this way: if you told me before this movie that Damon was playing a teenager for most of the movie and Douglas was playing Liberace, I would never have believed it would have worked. But it does because of the makeup and the acting.
Basing this off only two films (and the other four I've seen), I really appreciate just how competent of a filmmaker Soderbergh is. He has two essential traits that typically are underrated in a director: as a storyteller and the performances. I guess I just appreciated the storytelling aspect more because sometimes a director can get lost when covering a large period of time, but the story here is coherent and makes sense. He makes good decisions on what to keep, what to leave out, and how much time to spend on it. Also, directors don't quite get enough credit for getting good performances out of their actors. It's why good actors sometimes give bad performances in certain movies: bad direction. Everyone in Sex, Lies, and Videotape gave a great performance and the same holds true here.
The movie begins with a director's touch. The screen is blurry, and you can make out a bar scene. It gradually focuses and becomes clear as you see Bob Black across the bar. Scott's eyes - and our eyes - are opened to a whole new world of possibilities and he conveys that with that shot. Soderbergh also has a few extended scenes of Liberace playing the piano and the audience reaction. Soderbergh is clearly a fan. These scenes effectively mesmerize the audience as they presumably mesmerized his live audiences back in 1977. He goes to quick cuts while the music reaches a crescendo, planting in your mind an amazement each time his piano strikes a new chord. There's no need to understand why Scott was drawn to Liberace in those moments.
Soderbergh also effectively hides the low budget that he was given. At least, for a guy with as much opulence and wealth as Liberace, it might be kind of difficult to show that with a moderately low budget (Douglas and Damon had to have taken a fraction of what they usually cost for this movie). Two examples are when he shows a jet flying in the air and the montage of Scott getting a bunch of expensive things. The former was shot like it was in a cloud, which made it easier to blur the fact that he couldn't afford an aerial shot of a jet. There's nothing noticeable about the latter (except a cool diagonal-from-the-ground shot of the front of an expensive white car with Las Vegas buildings in the background) except that it probably wasn't easy to portray a lavish lifestyle with the budget he had. I will give particular due to the location scout who picked out the house where most of this movie is set.
Lastly, he shot the "Scott is high out of his mind" sequences on handheld, jarring the viewer into Scott's state of mind. Shaky cam isn't my favorite filming technique, but when done with a purpose, it's extremely effective. Speaking of drugs, Rob Lowe is in this and he is fucking HILARIOUS. His character is the plastic surgeon who operates on both Scott and Liberace, and he plays all of his scenes like he is high out of his mind. The makeup team once again does excellent work as his mere appearance creates laughs on its own.
Well that was more words than I planned to write. I really wasn't expecting to go into this much detail with these posts. I can't guarantee that will continue as I'm sort of beholden to where the words take me. I'm not going to stretch these posts out if I have nothing more to say. Behind the Candelabra is a good film with good performances. If you're interested in seeing Douglas play Liberace - and that's honestly a good hook - you'll probably enjoy this film.
2.5/4 stars
Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989)
When I started this project, I assumed that I would watch his movies in order. Due to his second and third movies being unavailable to me (among a couple others), I was stuck until I realized I did not need to watch his movies in order. So I decided to watch his last movie after his first movie. Of course by the time I have actually posted this thing, this is no longer his last movie. But it was at the time of this writing to give you an idea how long ago I wrote this.
Behind the Candelabra is a biopic TV movie, but to define it as a TV movie is slightly inaccurate. For all intents and purposes, it's a movie that came out in theaters. I only mention that because a TV movie conspires images of shoddy production values, second-rate actors, and forgettable fare. The slogan "It's not TV, it's HBO" is mostly accurate. HBO Films has released a few interesting biopics in the past few years (Bessie, Get on Up) and Behind the Candelabra is one of them.
If I wasn't doing this project, I would never have watched this movie. In order to watch a biopic, you either need to find the main subject compelling or you do it for the performances. That's pretty much it. I am not altogether that interested in Liberace's life. I didn't see him play - he died before I was even born. I don't listen to his music or watch his TV appearances or whatever else he did to become famous.
Soderbergh set out to not make the typical biopic film when he made Behind the Candelabra. He was in talks with Douglas back when he was making Traffic in 2000, but couldn't find an appropriate angle. In 2008, he decided to adapt the book by Scott Thorson as an angle for the movie and tapped Richard LaGravenese to write the screenplay. LaGravenese was a seasoned veteran of writing movies, having written 13 movies by that point. He doesn't seem to be a particularly good writer. He doesn't seem bad either. But his filmography is full of mediocre movies or worse. So I'm intrigued by that choice. Admirably, both Douglas and Damon signed on quickly and stuck with the movie as Soderbergh struggled to get it made over the next five years (because it was "too gay"). HBO Films picked it up and they made it for $23 million over a 30-day period.
To Soderbergh's credit, this isn't really a biopic film. It is and it isn't. It's about the relationship between Liberace and his much, much younger companion of about five years. This film was clearly made with a love for Liberace. There are a few scenes of just Liberace playing in front of a crowd. It's what drew Scott into his feelings for Liberace in the first place.
The true stars of this movie are the people behind the makeup department. Making a 44-year-old Matt Damon look not ridiculous as a 17-year-old is truly impressive work. It's not explicitly stated that he's 17 which probably helps. He definitely looks noticeably younger than normal and with certain mannerisms, Damon is convincing as at least being naive and young, which is basically all that is needed. Scott also gets plastic surgery which had the effect of making him look much older and the age differential is much less distracting. Douglas also had considerable makeup put on him throughout the film to make him credible as the Liberace. More than most films, makeup was especially important for believability.
If you're not interested in Liberace - and he's a colorful, larger-than-life character so I imagine I might be in the minority in my disinterest - then the performances are enough to make it worth watching. I did not know Douglas was capable of the performance he gives here. It's not that I thought he was a bad actor. He kind of reminded me of Tom Cruise in that he gives good performances but you never forget he's Michael Douglas. But I have only seen a small portion of his films so that preconception was clearly inaccurate. Much like Damon needed the mannerisms to make himself believable as a young guy, Douglas had the arguably much more difficult task of needing to have the mannerisms of a legend. Put it this way: if you told me before this movie that Damon was playing a teenager for most of the movie and Douglas was playing Liberace, I would never have believed it would have worked. But it does because of the makeup and the acting.
Basing this off only two films (and the other four I've seen), I really appreciate just how competent of a filmmaker Soderbergh is. He has two essential traits that typically are underrated in a director: as a storyteller and the performances. I guess I just appreciated the storytelling aspect more because sometimes a director can get lost when covering a large period of time, but the story here is coherent and makes sense. He makes good decisions on what to keep, what to leave out, and how much time to spend on it. Also, directors don't quite get enough credit for getting good performances out of their actors. It's why good actors sometimes give bad performances in certain movies: bad direction. Everyone in Sex, Lies, and Videotape gave a great performance and the same holds true here.
The movie begins with a director's touch. The screen is blurry, and you can make out a bar scene. It gradually focuses and becomes clear as you see Bob Black across the bar. Scott's eyes - and our eyes - are opened to a whole new world of possibilities and he conveys that with that shot. Soderbergh also has a few extended scenes of Liberace playing the piano and the audience reaction. Soderbergh is clearly a fan. These scenes effectively mesmerize the audience as they presumably mesmerized his live audiences back in 1977. He goes to quick cuts while the music reaches a crescendo, planting in your mind an amazement each time his piano strikes a new chord. There's no need to understand why Scott was drawn to Liberace in those moments.
Soderbergh also effectively hides the low budget that he was given. At least, for a guy with as much opulence and wealth as Liberace, it might be kind of difficult to show that with a moderately low budget (Douglas and Damon had to have taken a fraction of what they usually cost for this movie). Two examples are when he shows a jet flying in the air and the montage of Scott getting a bunch of expensive things. The former was shot like it was in a cloud, which made it easier to blur the fact that he couldn't afford an aerial shot of a jet. There's nothing noticeable about the latter (except a cool diagonal-from-the-ground shot of the front of an expensive white car with Las Vegas buildings in the background) except that it probably wasn't easy to portray a lavish lifestyle with the budget he had. I will give particular due to the location scout who picked out the house where most of this movie is set.
Lastly, he shot the "Scott is high out of his mind" sequences on handheld, jarring the viewer into Scott's state of mind. Shaky cam isn't my favorite filming technique, but when done with a purpose, it's extremely effective. Speaking of drugs, Rob Lowe is in this and he is fucking HILARIOUS. His character is the plastic surgeon who operates on both Scott and Liberace, and he plays all of his scenes like he is high out of his mind. The makeup team once again does excellent work as his mere appearance creates laughs on its own.
Well that was more words than I planned to write. I really wasn't expecting to go into this much detail with these posts. I can't guarantee that will continue as I'm sort of beholden to where the words take me. I'm not going to stretch these posts out if I have nothing more to say. Behind the Candelabra is a good film with good performances. If you're interested in seeing Douglas play Liberace - and that's honestly a good hook - you'll probably enjoy this film.
2.5/4 stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)