O Brother, Where Art Thou? | Moulin Rouge | Amélie | Chicken Run | Monsters Inc. | Frida | Citizen Kane | Python's Holy Grail | Rocky & Bullwinkle | Big Fish | Triplets of Belleville | Postscript | About | Home

Mascotr_harvey


Movies

Seen Any Good DVDs Lately?
GodfreyDo you mean movies made in the last few years? Since the professional actors stopped working? Umm, that's tough.

I prefer fantasy to realism (if I wanted reality, I'd have a life of my own). If you're a fan of action/adventure, or you prefer the Three Stooges to A Thousand Clowns, you probably won't like those I like, anyway.

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

It's a cross between Forrest Gump, The Grapes of Wrath and The Grand 'Ol Opry, set in a sepia-toned, dream-like 1937 South. The director says it's like a hillbilly Lawrence of Arabia. It's cheerfully-written, selflessly-acted, carefully framed, well-orchestrated by T Bone Burnett, funny and beautiful.

The DVD was released through the Touchstone/Disney folks, which means you have to click-past several trailers hawking lesser fare, before you get to the good stuff. It's worth it just so you can watch the gorgeous, muted-hues of the Siren seduction scene, time and again; imagine the car wash scene in Cool Hand Luke super-sized and served on a river bank, with hauntingly-beautiful music featuring Emmylou Harris.

The only reason I can see for it not doing well in theatrical sales or Academy Awards is the name, which is frankly pretentious and a bit dopey; if they had called it "O Brother," it would probably have done better.

Rating: Everybody keeps their clothes on. There's a plenitude of cussin' by politicos and paterfamilias. A middling amount of violence: now and again somebody gets smacked across the back of the head with a board.

Second Feature: Meet John Doe (1941).

Moulin Rouge (2001)

You say you're hankering for a Franco-Australian disco-fantasy? How about Moulin Rouge, which wraps some of today's most annoyingly self-congratulatory music with truly exciting and inventive photography and animation, and close-ups of Nicole Kidman? The opening sequence is so powerful that you're sure that they can't maintain this intensity for long, and a half-hour into the opening (really), you still can't take it for granted.

Ewan McGregor's singing is haunting, but not in a good way; one remembers it as a monotone feedback loop. I kept hoping that one of the hundreds of extras standing around all the time, would've stepped-in to help Mr. McGregor find the melody. As a musical, Moulin Rouge looks better than it sounds.

It's too tightly edited—an extra couple of frames in many scenes would have made it easier to follow. Watching it requires a fixed, trance-like stare, for fear of missing something critical when blinking. While there's not a wasted frame anywhere else, the Carmen-like ending hangs-on too long.

Rating: No violence, nudity or profanity, but an abundance of debauchery.

Second Feature: Rustler's Rhapsody (1985).

Amélie (2001)

Take the color sensibility of O Brother plus Moulin Rouge's frenzied camera, with a lifetime's-worth of fantastical dreams, and you get Améile or Amélie From Montmartre or maybe Le Fabuleux Destin D'Amélie Poulain; it's called all of them, depending on the size of the theater marquee. For the first five minutes I thought it seemed self-consciously highfalutin, like trying to have a conversation with somebody who wore an ascot and a monocle; you'll get past that, too. By the way, Montmartre is also featured in Moulin Rouge.

In much the same way Forrest Gump is a scrapbook of the late-20th century for this country, Amélie is France's warm memento.

You'll have to watch it at least three times:

In addition to being eternally grateful to see any French movie that doesn't look like a cigarette commercial, I stand gape-jawed at its depth, humor and integrity. The director's wide-angle lens glides through each scene with long, embracing movements, while the quiet, passive-aggressive, voyeuristic heroine (who sees herself as the "Godmother of Outcasts, Madonna of the Unloved") surreptitiously adjusts the fate of the dysfunctional cast, imagining that her antics cause one and all to praise her with "Without you, today's emotions would be the scurf of yesterday's." (Scurf, by the way, means scales or dry skin. So much for having your English subtitles written by Babel-fish... or Hipolito.)

Set in the summer of 1997, yet the streets are full of new bright blue Volkswagen Beetles. Still, Améile is the antithesis of Hollywood's recent summer titles. O Hollywood, where art thy head?

Note to Jean-Pierre Jenet, Améile's director: the garden gnome joke was done on David Letterman's show ten years earlier. Fly wings surely beat more than seventy times per minute.

Jean-Pierre Jenet's previous independent film was The City of Lost Children, which was beautiful but insane. (He later directed Alien IV, which I am unlikely to ever see.) He grows with everything he does; I'm looking forward to his next adventure.

Rating: While there's no violence or questionable language (other than the French language, itself), there is some sex and nudity.

Second Feature: Spirited Away, a 2001 animated film that espouses magic, demons and an orderly-dysfunctionality, is Japan's cultural counterpart to Améile. And they show the courtesy to dub it into English. I'm no fan of magic or spirits or contrived plot-twists (read: deus ex machina), but nonetheless, there is enough else good about the feature to recommend it. The central character is a 10-year old girl who, in retrospect, is either mature beyond her years, or the Améile character is not; either way, they display kindred enthusiasm, style, and poise.

Chicken Run (2000)

I suppose they hired the voice of Mel Gibson so that Chicken Run could get financing, and so distributors would even consider trying to convince theater owners to screen a film about Plasticine poultry.

The Aardman craftsmen (the same clever gang who do the Chevron Gasoline television commericals) offer an ensemble cast of real-live actors who just happen to be chickens. Set in a real and logical world, the chickens are wise and witty in one scene, only to tumble into a heap in the next. After all, as the owner of the chicken farm puts it, "They're chickens... the most stupid creatures on this planet. They don't plot, they don't scheme, and they are not organized!"

The film is wonderfully creative and endlessly fascinating, but not laugh-out-loud funny. However, we do get another look at garden gnome jokes.

The Plasticine players dragged much more from Mel's inflection-less, deadpan delivery, than he put into it (let's see, who else might have offered less vocal range: David Duchovney, Harrison Ford, Buster Keaton). Chicken Run is too tightly edited, probably because animated films are generally a half-hour shorter than live action. I'd like to have had that extra half hour to get to know the characters better.

Rating: Some violence may not be suitable for young children.

Second Feature: The Great Escape.

Monsters Inc. (2001)

Keep telling yourself: "They're just the distributors, they're just the distributors...," since today's Disney has little more to do with Monsters Inc. than making disc boxes, booking television advertisements, and filling the disc with trailers for Disney's own generic-mation. Just to be clear: Monsters Inc. is a 100-percent Pixar achievement, and it's terrific.

Randy Newman's musical score is simple, pleasant and agreeable, which is preferable to an overwrought John Williams score. My theory is that the Academy Award™ for Pretty Good Best Song was given to apologize for giving the Best Animated Feature award to Shrek (which, other than having more bodily function jokes, is outgunned by Monsters Inc.).

It is of course better looking than most Japanese Anime and as well directed as Chuck Jones' best films, but this isn't really a review of Monsters Inc... Let's celebrate the evolution of the Pixar Studio.

Every Pixar film builds on what was learned from making its predecessor. In Toy Story they learned how to do long-form digital animation; by now, they've learned plot and character development, and how to animate snow falling on blue fur. In their next movie, Finding Nemo, they learn how to animate under water. One day they will figure out how to realistically animate action within solid blocks, followed by a featurette done entirely in theoretical animation.

Realistic-looking people are still tough for them (though "Boo" looks good and the little man in Gere's Game is fine), but that's only because Pixar still seems to strive to make their animated characters look like real people. In my opinion, if you want real people, hire some; otherwise, populate your world with any para-hominids that fit. Many of today's real-live actors are exaggerated caricatures of regular human beings, anyway.

Pixar's 6-movie distribution contract with Disney is coming to a close. Left in the Disney/Pixar channel are The Incredibles, (about an aging super-hero) followed by Cars. Sequels, like Toy Story II, don't count, and Disney owns the rights to Pixar's animated characters, so Disney may make their own direct-to-video sequels. If there are any more sequels, they will likely be made by Disney, not Pixar. Along with the two Toy Story movies (remember: sequels don't count), A Bug's Life, Monsters Inc., it's a great run—it'll only get better.

Rating: No profanity, but some simulated scaring and lots and lots of screaming.

Second Feature: Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988). This was the end of the line for domestic hand-drawn animated features, and the final appearances for many classic voice actors. The humor is more Tex Avery-like than Chuck Jones-ish (or more Stooge-like than Chaplin-ish, for the uninitiated). Watch it for the line: "Would have been here right after you called... but I had to shake the weasels." Or this exchange:
Eddie: "I don't work for toons."
Angelo: "So what's his problem?"
Doloris: "Toon killed his brother... Dropped a piano on his head."

Frida (2002)

The first act of so many movies drags in exposition, talking about the main character's childhood friends, hardships and angst. Frida's director, Julie Taymor, sprints to the point, probably because the character's childhood is as interesting as some whole lives. It is the story of a fragile but determined artist named Frida Kahlo (Salma Hayek), and her husband, the much more successful painter Diego Rivera (Alfred Molina), as they explore life in a blue house. Called a marriage between an elephant and a dove, it's about their separate pains, and the pains they shape together.

We see the Mexican culture of the 1920s through the '50s, un-glorified Comunistic idealism, and sensuality. It's sharp, well-photographed, vast, yet personal. It's a brisk two hours, packed with music, color, paintings, photography, animation, politics, but surprisingly little humor. If handled by a less-sympathetic director than Julie Taymor, it might have been a very different movie.

Rating: Nudity, profanity, sexuality, drinking, drugs, smoking, Comunistic politics.

Second feature: Annie Hall (1977), Woody Allen's autobiographical essay about his rocky relationship with Diane Keaton.

Citizen Kane (1941)

This is a dramatic comic book (okay, Graphic Novel) of a movie, with dark shadows and darker heroes. None of that warm, friendly, cooperative attitude here. This is of the genre that relies on writing, acting and intelligence, instead of big-budgets, pretty people, and explosions.

You need to see Citizen Kane on its own, without factoring the baggage that's been hung on it over the last 60 years. On its own, it's the saga of a damaged man who spends a lifetime grabbing at the wrong brass ring. Like many movies that follow—from Sunset Boulevard to Pulp Fiction—the main character has died before the opening credits roll. Two hours worth of flashbacks later, we understand the arc of his life.

Visual and audio treats abound. Long, sweeping camera pans flow through rooms and over furniture; only after they cut to another scene do we realize that we just witnessed an impossible 4-minute scene, done without any edits. Angles, lighting and set design, are wonderfully drawn with an economical palette, though a tad too shiny and new.

Now the baggage: Mostly ignored for a decade because of egoes and war, and living in the shadow of Orson Welles himself, who is alternately called a boy-genius or one-hit-wonder, Citizen Kane could not possibly live up to everyone's expectations. Hollywood now celebrates this movie because it combines all the techniques developed up to that time (1941), with innovative new ideas, all of which lesser directors are still flogging today. It has become a how-to course for every hack and ego-tripper. In the same way Marvin Hamlish made a fortune off of the intellectual property of Scott Joplin, later directors copy every scrap of film wrought by Orson Welles.

Film reviewer Roger Ebert loves this movie; he's probably explored it a hundred times. In one of the alternate audio tracks, Mr. Ebert struggles to explain the mythical "Deep Focus" effects without using the word "Magic." It's clear that, while he has lead several groups and classes exploring this movie, nobody has ever confronted him with what Deep Focus really means. To paraphrase: Well, you see, if you take pictures, you know that the farther away from the camera the subject is, the more light it needs. And they used these giant lamps that were designed for Technicolor, along with some special lens and coating. I can feel my understanding of depth-of-field and matte boxes whither during his explanations (and he tries to explain it several times during the movie). If you know the innards of photography, you'll alternately squirm and giggle, when you realize that film students take this information with them on their first day of work. Rodger Ebert also explains why Socialism is good. There's another audio track by Peter Bogdanovich; I've heard about half of it, and it's mostly fascinating footnotes, letting you follow the film and his reminiscences together. When Bogdanovich says "Here's a great audio bit..." he stops talking long enough for you to hear it.

Rating: No profanity or sexuality, but some intensity. It's kind of a downer, so don't expect to go skipping out of the screening room while humming the theme song.

Second Feature: Sixty years later, in The Cat's Meow (2001), Peter Bogdanovich gives William Randolph Hearst another thrashing. Much of this film was shot in the same studio with the same crew as Amélie, in a staging and camera style reminiscent of Kane.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1974)

I so very much wanted to ignore this movie. It's vulgar, low-budget, crude, home-made looking, and until its recent restoration, muddy (sound, picture, and my recollection of the plot). After 27 years, they hauled-out the original film negatives and managed to get a much clearer print; a very good movie emerged from all that mud. If you haven't seen the spruced-up version, you owe yourself a viewing.

The 1970s gave us some fine comedies; Woody Allen, Mel Brooks, Peter Sellers and Monty Python were in their prime. This 1974 release is perhaps the best of the era—at least in its price range.

Mostly retelling King Arthur legends, Holy Grail is on the one hand outrageous and silly, while on the other hand, silly and outrageous. Basically, a half-dozen eccentric men go to Scotland to wallow in mud and fog for six weeks, then return with several film cans full of very funny stuff.

Funniness aside, it's an important movie that defines a new way to look at how to do a fully-realized film for $300,000. Released the same year as Blazing Saddles, it's richer and more textured—and they share similar endings: plots collapse and the actors are left to fend for themselves. (I'm giving away very little of the plot; where it is going is less important than the journey.)

Rating: A little bit of profanity. Lots of supposedly-comedic blood and violence.

Second Feature: Excalibur (1981), with some memorably original acting by Nicol Williamson, tells the Arthur legends from a different point of view: reality (other than the magic swords and watery tarts). Gabriel Byrne is listed eighth in the closing credits; Liam Neeson is 11th, and Patrick Stewart (Captain Picard) is 14th.

Rocky & Bullwinkle & Friends Complete Season 1 (1959)

Moose and SquirrelWhy does a list of movies include a 45-year old TV cartoon show? We're looking at milestones; this one defines how TV cartoons are to look for generations.

Introduced in 1959, at times called The Rocky Show, Bullwinkle, Rocky & Friends, this first season introduces the characters (even though Bullwinkle had been a hand-puppet in a previous life). Features include Mr. Peabody (and his famous Wayback machine), Fractured Fairy Tales, Dudly Doright of the Mounties, and more. Each episode continues the multi-part Rocky & Bullwinkle cliffhangers, as they accidentally outwit the notorious Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale.

By Bullwinkle standards, the image quality, color, and sound are outstanding. By anybody else's standards, it's grainy, scratchy, and jumpy, with glaring errors in animation. And charming. This collection is 26 episodes, nearly ten hours of cold war politics, puns, and fun.

Executive Producer Ponsonby Britt was invented by Jay Ward and Bill Scott because the studio told them to get an executive producer. The middle initial of many of today's cartoon characters is J., as a tribute to Jay Ward.

Rating: Risqué in 1959. Sweet and gentle, compared to today's culture.

Second Feature: Futurama began forty years after Rocky&Bullwinkle; it's probably the best looking TV cartoon ever, with the best music and acting... and the most profanity. And forty years after Rocky ended, Sunday, August 10, 2003, Futurama ended. Set a thousand years in the future, it's a treat for those who love science fiction, and sweet revenge for those who don't. See Futurama fan site.

Big Fish (2003)

"It doesn't always make sense, and most of it never happened," the voice-over hints. By the time they finally remember to tell us the title of the movie, we know that it's about Edward Bloom, from Ashton Alabama, a determined, affable man, who told and lived fantastic stories.

Big Fish is directed by Tim Burton, a clever and visual guy, known for surrealistic, comic book-like movies. Burton has many commercial successes, including Batman (with Danny DeVito as The Penguin), Beatlejuice, Ed Wood, Edward Scissorhands, and Pee-Wee's Big Adventure. Big Fish is perhaps Tim Burton's best film—with another "Ed" in it, and another suburbia.

Burton's worlds have dark sides; here it's the relationship of a father and son. I see it as the story of the Big Fish (the father), as seen by the son—after all, movies all have to see things through somebody's eyes. Some say that Big Fish appeals more to men than to women, though it's hardly a movie for jocks.

Edward: Dying is the worst thing that's ever happened to me.
Son: I thought you said you weren't dying.
Edward: I said this isn't how I go. The last part is much more unusual. Trust me on that.

It's charming and inventive, with great art direction and good photography. Even the wallpaper is charming and clever. Music, by Danny Elfman, who also works on The Simpsons, is always just right. The film is less ambitious than I had expected. Fantastical events are few, and their fantasticality often overstated—or over-anticipated. It's not an epic journey, of the scale of Forrest Gump, but a personal movie.

There's little order to it. Short-stories, vignettes and asides, induce flashbacks to relive Edward's travels, while folksy narration keeps us on track. Big spans are left for us to imagine, and details are missing—like amazing escapes, which are fortunately always successful. There are conflicts and a bad guy, but he's not all that bad (like Biff, in Back To The Future). There's an enemy to fight, but they seem rather nice. On the other hand, the friendliest of folks are the most mysterious.

Albert Finney and Ewan McGregor play Edward Bloom at different ages; fortunately, neither one tries to sing. In his youth, Edward is gregarious and wants to be liked; later, some see him as a blustery blowhard—but he's still just trying to be likable. Jessica Lange is understated, elegant, and not in nearly enough scenes. Ed's world is populated by eccentric and likable characters, played wonderfully by Helena Bonham Carter, Steve Buscemi, Danny DeVito, and many more.

Poet: I've been working on this poem for 12 years.
Edward: Really?
Poet: There's a lot of expectation. I don't wanna disappoint my fans.
Edward: May I?
"The grass so green | Skies so blue | Spectre is really great!"
Edward: It's only three lines long.
Poet: This is why you should never show a work in progress.

Today, special effects are replacing car chases and explosions; many effects are ordered by lazy directors and created on computers by enthusiastic animators. Special effects in Big Fish are mechanical. Real people behind the scenes pull wires and push levers, making it familiar, yet more fantastic, at the same time. It's as visual as this visual medium gets, without animating the lot. When you see a fish in a river, it's really there—though it may be made of rubber. Some perspective-cheats, to make things big or small, do show.

DVD video and audio quality are excellent. I'm so happy to have the world of Big Fish in my life. When you see it, watch for the banjo player from Deliverance, and the high-diving circus cat—both are the real thing.

Rating: Just a handful of swear words, and a naked woman who's way, way far away, at night, with her back to us, and Danny DeVito's bare backside, too (unfortunately, he's not way-way far away).

Second Feature: Airplane!, a send-up of every '70s-style all-star catastrophe epic, with every old movie cliché dry-roasted. I attended a sneak preview of Airplane! in a full house. From the Jaws-like opening on, every joke—and every sight-gag in the background—worked. I have never heard such laughter from a movie audience. When the plane knocked-over the disco radio tower, a hundred people stood and cheered. Compare the hero's war efforts to Edward Bloom's, in Big Fish.

The Triplets of Belleville (2003)

This feature-length cartoon is a treat for classic animation devotees and Francophiles, or a confusing, slightly uncomfortable dream, if you're not. This is a gritty, surrealistic, eccentric fantasy; how it looks to you, depends on your mood going in. And it's not all that bumptious or affected; feel free to watch it at home, instead of while sipping chardonnay in an art house.

The opening sequence is sepia, scratchy, and ageified, to look like the 1930s of the title characters' youth. As time passes in the story, technology improves, along with the look of the film; eventually, it becomes a computer-aided watercolor painting, bursting with 3D effects. Animator Sylvain Chomet offers a self-aware cartoon of exaggerated forms, 1930s and '60s animation style, and fanciful design. It's not the crisp alternate reality of Japanese Anime, or smoother artificial reality of Pixar; it might be the style of Toulouse-Lautrec, with a Macintosh.

Belleville, the setting for part of the film, is a suburb of Paris; it's also a city in New Jersey and another in Ontario, Canada. There is some confusion about exactly where and when Belleville is, since it's nowhere near Paris. It's full of busy, but very fat people (even its Statue of Liberty is fat), '50s American and French cars, B&W TVs, and new jet planes. And sirens. And smoking—maybe it is in France, after all.

The Triplets, a haggard family, living on the edge of show business for ninty years or so, can make music by folding a newspaper, and make a three-course dinner from a bucket of frogs. Regardless of the title, there's no hero or star; the cast, including a very fat dog, a nobby-legged bicyclist, and an energetic little lady with a club foot, cooperate to outmatch the bad guys. You can tell that main characters are nice—they do not smoke. I don't know if we identify with the characters; maybe we admire how they adapt to their lot.

The Triplets of Belleville is musical, but it's not a musical. The jazzy score is light and fun, as if it had been arranged sixty years ago by Carl Stalling, the conductor and arranger of hundreds of classic Warner Bros. cartoons.

The story is not nightmarish, where you'd wake in a cold sweat. It's dreamlike, still, but the kind where you wake thinking "That was odd." There are bad guys—the French Wine Mafia—with an evil scheme that defies explanation, and plot twists that make even less sense. Nobody does French clichés like the French: Tour de France, smoking, wine, waiter who bends over backward to pretend to be helpful, quirky little cars, frogs, pride, very fat/thin people; they're all there. Surely some in the audience won't admit that they don't understand many of the cultural references—I understood every one of 'em.

At 81-minutes, it's shorter than most animated features, but some moviegoers, especially young, pop-culture-sated folks, may still think it's a little slow-moving. It seems rather leisurely, but if you watch it a second time, you'll see that not a frame or idea is wasted—and it'll make more sense the second time through. Most of the half-dozen lines of dialog are translated into English. DVD quality is excellent.

So, in closing, if you don't like old cartoons or French people, you won't like this movie, either.

Rating: No profanity, unless they're mumbling, or it's in French—it's hard to tell. A little cartoon nudity (Josephine Baker dancing)! Lots of French smoking, violence, and a surprising amount of killing. This is not a cartoon for very young children.

Second Feature: The kids have already tuned-out, so pick something R-rated; you can have that glass of chardonnay, now.

Postscript

It's often said that a great movie has three great scenes and no bad ones. For example, All That Jazz has disconcerting images of open heart surgery; The Legend of 1900 ends an otherwise beautiful scene by destroying an irreplaceable Victorian glass wall by crashing a piano through it (only to have the wall magically restored ten minutes later); in Life Is Beautiful a character is ceremoniously shot with a burst of machine gun fire, while a single, echoed, rifle round (or have him just not show-up for the next scene) would have been more dramatic. Bad scenes.

Ninety years ago you could get away with nailing the tripod to the floor, opening the skylight, and depending on charismatic actors and a few sight gags. Everything was new.

Art and science depend and build on the inventions and discoveries of previous generations. Yet some keep making the same movies again-and-again, just with larger explosions. There's a lot of greed, fear and laziness going around.

It's rare that all the conditions align to allow for one great movie; it's even less common to see artists able to commit enough of their lives to do it more than once. Pictures by Thomas Gainsborough and Ansel Adams are often a little too dark, to me; still, better that than no pictures at all.

Other

How about movies that are pretty good, but too hard to find, obviously good choices (we've mentioned several in passing, like Forrest Gump), or they have some issues? Here are some more very good movies that are available on DVD:

Top | Notice | Home | | © Copyright 2007 R. E. Harvey, All rights reserved.