Tag Archives: film

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Ultimately, ‘Cloudburst’ Disappoints

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Saw the rest of Cloudburst the other night.

Sadly, it declined toward the end as it ventured into forced sentimentality and easy plot lines, including (spoiler alert) the death of one of the protagonists. I don’t care for this sort of thing; it’s a simple, common cinematic tactic and rarely garners the effect it seeks. There also was a quirky funeral involved which, like some of the content I referred to in my previous post, stretched credibility.

This film started off very nicely, with strong dialogue and sharp characters. But, as is the case with so many movies, it fell apart in an effort to be crowd-pleasing. I was hoping that it would stay on its likable path and refuse to be pegged into a hole that fit. Oh, well. Hopefully, the next film I see will be more rewarding.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: ‘Cloudburst’ Unleashed

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613OK, so I didn’t get a chance to finish Cloudburst last night. What I saw of it, however, I rather liked.

The story of an elderly lesbian couple on the run after they’re split up when one is forced to go to a home, Cloudburst has lively dialogue and a strong performance by reliable Olympia Dukakis as one of the feisty protagonists. It also has strong direction by Thom Fitzgerald, who also wrote the script. I think there are a couple of spots that stretch credibility, including a scene in which two characters are let go after being busted for drugs, but overall it seems to be an enjoyable film. I’m looking forward to seeing the rest.

When I will actually do so is another story. Hopefully, it’ll be soon.

Skip’s Quips: The Horror of ‘Jud Süß’

~

Blog Sketch 082813Everyone should see the movie Jud Süß.

There’s a reason for that: It’s one of the most horrifying pictures ever made. This is slickly crafted Nazi propaganda, a wartime movie that viciously portrays Jews as evil, conniving monsters out to rape non-Jewish women and destroy others while making oodles of money. I watched this film recently because I believed I needed to see it as part of my cinematic education.

I’m glad I did.

It’s a monument to the tyranny of the Third Reich and extremely disturbing. It also has strong production values and impassioned acting, which contributed to its effectiveness as propaganda. I can only wonder what its impact was when it debuted in Germany to already anti-Semitic audiences. It must’ve been scary.

I don’t think this is a movie that should be seen without context. Instead, it should be shown in museums and schools as part of an educational initiative. No one should forget what atrocities the Nazis committed, and this film is part of its effort to blame the Jews for all kinds of problems. As a Jew, I believe it’s essential to see this movie with the perspective that the Nazi regime used all kinds of tools to convey its vile, racist ideology. Everyone should remember what happened. Watching this picture is a way to do so.

Setter’s ‘Spectives, Part II: Well, I Finished ‘The Lunchbox’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613And it was good. Not a masterpiece. But very well done.

Some might find it slow. I didn’t; I though the pace was perfectly fine. I did, however, feel that it used one particularly loaded line a bit too much; it was something about “the wrong train” getting you to “the right place,” and I think a less heavy-handed application of this would’ve suited the film better. It’s not a deal breaker, however. The movie still worked.

I wonder why it’s so difficult for American movies to take such simple plots – The Lunchbox was about two people connecting via handwritten notes in misplaced lunch deliveries – and pace them in a way that’s both not too fast and not too slow. Of course, there are exceptions, but it seems the slam-bang styles have more of an appeal in this day and age to the general public … that is, if we are to believe what the movie previews tell us.

Anyway, I enjoyed The Lunchbox very much. Maybe it’s not for everyone, but if you’re interested in a laid-back film that deals honestly with people’s problems, it might just be what you’re seeking. It was for me.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: A Taste of ‘The Lunchbox’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613I have to write a little about The Lunchbox before I finish it.

It’s really a fine film. I thought I was going to be frustrated with it. Boy, was I wrong.

Watched about a third last night; had to stop it because I was tired. But it was enthralling. Beautiful cinematography. Great sound. And a simple but touching story (two people in Mumbai get their lunchboxes mixed up and start writing notes to each other). I’m hoping to see the rest of it tonight.

It’s further proof that a movie doesn’t have to have a complicated plot or flashy editing to be enjoyable. It can be deliberately paced, like The Lunchbox is. The conflict can be minimal. The characters may be few. And yet, the flick can be as powerful as any one with a cast of thousands.

It only helps that this film, which is tangentially about food, made me hungry. Hopefully, I’ll have at least a bite to eat before I complete it this evening.

Skip’s Quips: A Toast to ‘The Roaring Twenties’

~

Blog Sketch 082813I like a good Jimmy Cagney movie. Strange that I hadn’t seen The Roaring Twenties until the other night, though.

It was a crackling flick, this tale of the rise and fall of a bootlegger during Prohibition. Good pacing, great production design and sharp direction by the reliable Raoul Walsh. Plus, Bogie was in it, and he made, as he often did, a very able villain.

Cagney was good at playing gangsters, but he had a lot more range than I think people give him credit for. Still, these pictures remain some of his most memorable ones. Glad I got a chance to see The Roaring Twenties, finally.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Bad Puns and ‘Good Will Hunting’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613I have five things to say about Good Will Hunting, which I just saw for the first time a couple of days ago.

I. Did. Not. Like. It.

Part of me knew this would happen. The bad pun in the title gave my future cinema verdict away. I couldn’t appreciate something that didn’t take itself seriously enough to give itself a sharper moniker.

But there were other problems that rubbed me the wrong way. A script that was both sappy and abrasive. An unlikable lead performance. Schmaltzy music. And a plodding pace. All of which undermined several good performances, notably by Robin Williams as a therapist helping the title character.

Direction was also problematic. The film moved so slowly it was unbearable. I’m not a big fan of Gus Van Sant’s other films, including the dreadful To Die For and the frustrating Elephant. GWH is just another movie in his canon that I don’t care for.

I realize GWH is very popular. Once again, I’m in the minority on this. I don’t know why, though. To me, it just didn’t work.

Skip’s Quips: Picking Up the Pace with ‘Only Lovers Left Alive’

~

Blog Sketch 082813There’s little more frustrating than a frustrating movie.

Enter Jim Jarmusch’s vampire opus Only Lovers Left Alive. Was this flick frustrating or what? It had some funny bits, some great cinematography, a look, a feel. But it didn’t have a lot of conflict … and the internal issues experienced by the characters – what seemed to be the problem of remaining alive, as a vampire, for hundreds of years and quelling the thirst for sucking someone’s blood out of his or her body without being  bored – were resolved in an all too pat fashion. Add in a very deliberate pace (glacial doesn’t come close), and you have a bit of a mess.

Jarmusch has a lot of talent. I like the fact that this film was to a horror-driven vampire movie as eggplants are to horn-rimmed glasses. But I think it might’ve been overly ambitious. It reached for things it couldn’t attain. A more straightforward flick would’ve been more entertaining.

Of course, if it was a more straightforward film, it probably would’ve been a horror movie. So perhaps the only thing it could’ve been was what it became.

Oh, well. I guess I was expecting something a little more satisfying. It was a good try, nonetheless.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: What Is It About ‘The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies’ That Bothers Me?

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613For some reason, I’m not as excited at the prospect of watching The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies as I was before, say, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King debuted.

Is it because I already know where the One Ring will end up? Perhaps the suspense is not as great as it was more than 10 years ago, when the LOTR trilogy was entering its final stages.

There’s also the issue of the Hobbit movies not being as great as the LOTR films. There’s not as much riding on the protagonists, it seems, as there was in the later books and movies. I mean, once you have Sauron and Ringwraiths pursuing you, being tense becomes an everyday thing.

I think another problem is the fact that the Hobbit pictures have been stretched out to three cinematic chapters, whereas the three LOTR books just made three movies. There seems to be a lot of filler in the former films: lots of battle scenes that are fun to watch but aren’t as insistent as the ones in LOTR.

I suspect The Battle of Five Armies will be enjoyable. Just not the instant classic that The Return of the King is.

Skip’s Quips: Watching the Fur Fly in ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’

~

Blog Sketch 082813Let no one accuse me of not enjoying a bit of popular moviemaking now and then.

I did just that yesterday in Times Square during a showing of Guardians of the Galaxy, the hit sci-fi spectacular from Marvel about mismatched con-creatures battling a blue warlord who wants to take over the universe or something.

Yeah, that was about what it was about.

Honestly, part of the fun was not caring what it was about. This is a light, special effects-laden romp featuring, among others, a hulking tree-beast and a trash-talking raccoon, so you know it’s going to be snarky. Yet there was a good dose of sensible humor as well, plus a tender moment toward the end that nearly transcended the picture.

I wouldn’t say it’s a classic. Some of the flashy battle scenes moved slowly and were hard to follow … not that following them would’ve made a big difference. And I did feel the flick missed a few choice opportunities to be funnier, though the aforementioned raccoon was a splendid creation. Plus, it did feel incredibly derivative. It hadn’t exactly been where no one has gone before.

Still, it was diverting, and I enjoyed most of it. Would I see it again? Not sure. It was quite imaginative, however, and that’s a plus. In this day and age, you don’t always get that in the movies.