High Sierra (1941)

"I was getting nervous, waiting over an hour."
"I've been waiting too, over eight years."

That's the answer which represent the genre and the '40s' Hollywood for me. Especially if we receive this kind of quick riposte from Bogart's emotionless character, just released from the prison. Really, he is just perfect! It is a real luck that he was chosen for the part of Roy Earle, pardon, 'Mad Dog Earle'. I mean literally, because originally it was given for two other actors. After their refusal Raoul Walsh picked Bogart, which became his first major role (still Ida Lupino's name on the top...), and started the avalanche of his career. The same year he made Huston's The Maltese Falcon and a year later, yes, you found it out already, in 1942 he gave his biggest in the Casablanca.

But don't run away from this true masterpiece! I need to admit that despite of this title (masterpiece), not this movie is the best from the half-eyed Raoul Walsh. For me the White Heat (1949) with James Cagney is still the top, but It must be true, that without this Walsh couldn't arrive to his peak.
Actually Bogart is much more complex than Cagney's Arthur 'Cody' Jarret: he gave a perfect mixture of a soft-hearted guy and a tough crime-fella. His role – and especially his talent to balance these personalities of his – fuels complexity into the story as well. There is no doubt about how this story ends: the criminal with the heart, who is searching a 'Home' doesn't live long in Hollywood (if you wouldn't be familiar with the attributes of the genre then there is a strong clue in the story: just "read" the dog's behave – it will tells everything about the coming happenings...).

Before I would say "Go and watch it!" only one small remark connected to the style of the cinematography. We are in 1941, in the year of the 'big' Citizen Kane, which adored because of its camera technique. No doubt, Gregg Toland is one of the biggest reference points in the history of the film style. But if we look closer the camerawork of the High Sierra, we may recognize the similarities between Toland's and Tony Gaudino's way of using the deep focus (the earlier Oscar-winner Italian shot the cultic Hell's Angels (1930) for Howard Hughes too...). Let me show some examples from the film:











This last one reminds me considerably to the famous and cited angle from the Citizen Kane... I don't want to judge in the question who used the first time the deep focus motivated by dramaturgical reasons, but I'd like to point out one of my intuitions in this case: I think Toland became the reference-figure of the film analysts, because he used the technique extremely way, where the word 'extremely' refers to its recognizability.

Now, as I promised one thing remained:
"Go and watch it!"

8/10

Redacted

"A fictional story inspired by true events, REDACTED is a unique cinematic experience that will force viewers to radically reconsider the filters through which we see and accept events in our world, the power of the mediated image and how presentation and composition influence our ideas and beliefs. A profound meditation on the way information is packaged, distributed and received in an era with infinite channels of communication, REDACTED utilizes a variety of created source material-video diaries, produced documentary, surveillance footage, online testimonials, news pieces-to comment on the extreme disconnect between the surface of an image and the reality of ideas and the truth, especially in times of strife." (source)

In general I'm fed up with the growing number of feature and documentary views on the war of Iraq, but according to this above info and the director, Brian de Palma, I'm getting more and more curious...

American Gangster (2007)

This is the hit now at every box office in the States. Only this fact made me a bit suspicious about Ridley Scott's epic movie, otherwise every leaked out details enforced my expectations.

American Gangster. That's a statement already. Sounds like The Godfather, the Chinatown or the Gladiator. These titles occupy geographically or grammatically a certain, quite broad area with their clear aim: to visualize, to summarize our views on some wider fields. They stand for some kind of values and common knowledges. They are using and reinforcing these knowledges of ours. They vindicate their place in the history of these knowledges, in the history of film.

And we are not far from this registers: I mean the film is some kind of 'Black Godfather'. I know it sounds very bad, even the cops didn't believe in its possible existence. And this is the point where the movie can work. When we hear the word 'mafia' our associations provide us an Italian Brando- or Pesci-like "pronunciation". But for sure not Denzel Washington. And this way of thinking and a perfect idea give a chance to Frank Lucas (played by D.W.) to organize an invisible crime establishment.
If we have a mob then we need a cop too. Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe) is definitely the most honest cop in the (film) history. He isn't as good as he was last time in the 3:10 to Yuma, but still better than thousand of his obsessed predecessors. They are together can't reach the level of de Niro's and Pacino's couple (I think on this and not this), but they are far good enough to keep your eyes on the canvas for more than two hours.

The story starts in 1968, the time when in its Vietnam background America turns into a "super fucking discount store", when "you can't find a heart of anything". In this level it's unnecessary to talk about the perfectionism of the set, characters and atmosphere. If you have ever played with the GTA then you know what I am talking about. (If not, check this picture from the film:)


Of course you should watch this movie even with its unavoidable problems, which are coming from its – above mentioned – summarizing efforts. 'The dignity in business', 'the importance of family', 'the unbreakable honesty', and my favorites: the "never forget where we are come from"-attitude and the worn-out "This is America"-bullshit. These and many other already exploited topics and their typical words of stereotypical approaches sound quite funny in 2007. Everything is too direct, everything showed and said as it is. But hey, it's shouldn't be a documentary or an Armageddon-like heroic blabber in front of an American flag (don't afraid it isn't)!

I almost gave 7 out of 10, but the (almost) final conversation between Frank and Richie forced me to give one extra point. With this and even more points on the imdb (8.4 on 15-11-2007) this epic movie is maybe overestimated. At least it shouldn't be at the 107th place of the all time best movies, especially not 7 places behind Scott's much universal classic, the Blade Runner.

8/10

Premonition (2007)

Mennan Yapo's (whose??) film earned 5.6 points on the imdb (13/11/2007). Despite I was skeptic about this weak result I always found an excuse not to see this. And then Gábi's suggestion explained that the film might fit into my research on non-linear narratives, so I decided.

"I hate surprises" - tells the first sentence, but from a viewer's position I didn't want to agree with this, especially not in a connection of a thriller. At this point I need to add that I'm really irritated by Sandra Bulldog, so the first impressions combined with the very very average and more predictible 'mysticalthrillerlike' music were quite bad. Then the movie started and I felt some hope.

Don't afraid, I won't tell the story, but without killing any jokes I can summarize the idea behind the plot. The idea which is very challenging: I guess the film tried to elevate the premonition as a mental phenomenon into a narrative. Sooner or later the movie industry will exploit all the medical terms - just think on the Deja Vu (deja vu), Memento (anterograde amnesia), Identity (multiple personality syndrome) and so on. Unfortunately the Premonition cannot grow up next to its predecessors. Its biggest mistake: it changes its genre from thriller to romantic drama. We receive our usual portion of visual and any kind of hints. Let's see two examples:

Ok, thank you,
it's really a puzzle narrative...

And do not push into my face: I recognized Velazquez's Las meninas immediately...

Is the premonition connected to the fate? If it is, is there any chance to change our destiny? Do we have an unreliable narrator? Is Sandra Bullock really a bad actor?:) If you need answers, just watch the movie which is still worth because its tricky narrative.

But on the whole my premonitions didn't fail me about this film. The imdb has right:

6/10

(thanks to Gábi for the tip - and I'd like to ask all my visitors to inform me about the possible movies which could be part of my interest on every kind of non-linearity. thanks in advance)

Southland Tales

This is the way the world ends.
Not with a whimper,
but with a bang...

Finally. Richard Kelly's (Donnie Darko) new film is here!
But you have still time to read the first three episodes here (the prequel saga is available as a comic).
Then you will enjoy much more the film. Because it's coming soon...

No Country for Old Men

My most wanted movie at the moment. I hope the post is coming soon... Frendo:)

Confidence (2003)

"So I'm dead." Impressive start from a narrator. We have seen this kind of beginning before (in one of my top ten movies ever), but...

...I cannot continue because I don't want to ruin your entertainment. To tell the truth I shouldn't say a single word about the movie to avoid giving any help or hint.

James Foley's film from 2003 is one of the biggest surprises for me in the last weeks. Just check down my grade and you will see that I mean this surprise absolutely positive. Please don't look after the director' oeuvre on the imdb otherwise you will miss this movie. It's better if I confess the most painful details about him here. The recent Perfect Stranger (Willis-Berry) is a big shit but cannot be as huge as his third film was back in 1987. I'm not even dare to write the title, the brave ones can click here. BUT as I said forgot all these past and watch the Confidence (or if you like CONfidence) - you won't regret, I promise!

So the narrator is dead - what the cinephile says? "It must be a flashback-movie!" Right. The first flashback asks from our condemned protagonist: "Does your life flashing before your eyes?" And the story starts - not the entire life but the last 3 weeks flickering down during the approx. 90 minutes running time of the film.

The parallelism with the noir classic is not a coincidence: Foley's characters have their predecessors in the best genre ever found out in Hollywood. Of course everybody is contemporalized, but the main features are recognizable (ice-cold gangster he and chain-smoker femme fatale she). Even the style is re-formed, if you interested: Bordwell wrote focusing on this film about the special technique (wipe-by axial cut) of speeding up the movie (The Way Hollywood Tells it, page 175.).

It is almost perfect. One minus point because one time (at least out of ten) I was smarter than a screenplay. The rest I was coned as everybody else in the story.

Günther Butan:)

9/10

First Snow (2006)

"You've been expected me, right?" - what else we could start our conversation with a fortune teller?

Do you wanna know how you gonna die? I bet everybody was thinking about this question more or less. The issue for Jimmy Starks (Guy Pearce) is getting serious, I mean dead serious.

Maybe you don't know too much about the director. Did anybody hear the name Mark Fergus? The First Snow is his first and – until now – last movie, but his contribution as a screenplay writer gave bigger importance to him. The Children of Men was one of the most brainy film recently and I think nobody needs to introduce the next year's big hit. Yes, as one of its writers he is responsible for the Iron Man too.
But what we have here? Fergus delivers a fate-story of Jimmy, the self confident jukebox dealer, who hasn't got too much time left (Fate movie? My clue is: 'your life is predestined, so it's definitely not a jukebox'. Got it?). The more scepticism of a protagonist, the more dramatic effect when he needs to change his mind... Welcome to Hollywood!
"One thing is certain. [He is] safe until the first snow..." I cannot tell more, because eventually I'd like to convince you to give a chance and watch.
I believe I don't need to mention that in Hollywood every fate and destiny has its reason. Yep: Jimmy's search in his past and limited future is about finding out the cause which delivers the deadly effect. Simple, isn't it? I admit the story is not the most complex what I've ever seen, but the directing, characters (Mahone rulez:)) and some well placed jokes compensate enough.
It's not a 12 Monkeys or Ringu-type fate-brightness, but six (almost seven) out of ten is worth to give.



6/10

Mysterious Skin (2004)

I don't know where to start. Maybe the best would be like this: Do not watch this "movie"! Or maybe it is enough? Ok, let me explain it a bit more detailed.
Gregg Araki's film from 2004 is a typical independent arty-farty big nothing. I have nothing against the indies, I just really sick of those ones which cannot step over their boring, always repeated topics like "the painful beauty of homosexuality" or "the traumatic childhood's haunting" and so on, you exactly know what I'm talking about. (More about the more and more predictable independent movies by Richard Corliss click here, and shoot here for Bordwell's answer.)

What we have here? We are following the UFO freak Brian's and the teenage homo-hooker Neil's parallel lifes from 1981 until '91 or what, which - you won't find out - will collide during the development of the film. Doesn't deserve more, really. Maybe I should give a """huge""" spoiler about the end to be sure you won't watch it, to save your time (and probably your life).
Anyway, don't listen to others, especially not those who gave 8 (!) points average on the imdb (my try was because of this). Bad directing, even worse acting (the bastards even destroyed my positive view on Chloe). The biggest enjoyment was for me to give 2 points for it.

2/10