What happened was that suddenly, to paraphrase the old Schnozzola : "Everybody wanted in on the act". They wanted to watch movies with Yours Truly. Now of course, I don't know a whole heck of a lot of people, so in this case "everybody" just means my sister and Grimsley. But Vick wanted me to accompany her to the theater, and Grim kept bringing over dvds, so in addition to the old movies I like to watch (think of me as your personal TCM), I at once had a growing backlog of motion pictures to review. They piled up faster than you can say Jack Robinson. As of tomorrow we'll have six unreviewed flicks on the table, so in an effort to break the logjam we're gonna do two blogs of three each. Because several of them are modern, which isn't my specialty (and one is brand new), we're just gonna give synopses. I'll try to make them substantial, however. I hope you won't feel shortchanged.
A quick note : when I say modern films aren't my specialty I don't mean that I can't write about them effectively, it's just that I don't prefer to. For one thing, what we do here is older movies, ones folks may not have seen. The other thing is that I love the Golden Age of Cinema - the classic stars and directors - and feel at home with reviewing in that style. So when I mention a modern flick, it's usually one Grim wanted to watch. For me, since about 2002, I've been enamored with older movies. They're the ones that, to me, tell the best stories.
At any rate, let's get going.
The first film on the docket is "Cimarron", and.......wait a sec........"didn't we just watch that"?, you're asking. Well, yes we did, but this is the remake, released in 1960 and starring Glenn Ford as "Yancey Cravat", the role Richard Dix brought to life in the Oscar winning original. The newer "Cimarron" was directed by Anthony "The" Mann, who specialized in Westerns and made several classics in that genre with James Stewart in the lead, playing tough sons-of-bitches, guys that could "kick your goddamn ass" (said in Jimmay Schtooart-speak).
The framework in both Cimarrons is similar, but they're working from two different adaptations. Dix played Yancey as larger than life, like a character from a Mark Twain story. Glenn Ford brings a 1950s realism to the role and plays him down to earth, and while he's quite good he's more taciturn than Richard Dix; his Yancey loses the heroic flamboyance of the character, the freewheeling spirit Dix brought to the first film.
The conflicts in the remake are more clearly drawn. In the first film, the root causes of dispute were only alluded to, for the most part. Prejudice was depicted, but not the brutal violence that can accompany it. In the remake, it's there on vicious display. Yancey's wife Sabra was presented as a stoic survivor in the 1931 film. in the 1960 version, she's played by Maria Schell as an emotional wreck, far more fragile and nervous.
The character of Dixie Lee, who figures strongly in the plot of both films, is played this time around by the great Anne Baxter and is given a substantial increase in screen time and story. In the first film we got just a sketch of her relationship to Yancey. In the 1960 remake we find out she's his former girlfriend, whom he left - as he always does - due to his restless nature. In the first film, Dixie's profession was only hinted at. Here, she's shown straight-up as the madame of a cathouse. Also, the court trial of the first film is entirely omitted.
So as you can see, the remake is a far different picture. The context of Yancey's ultimate fate is also changed. Please see my review of the original film (about a month ago) for details on the bulk of the story. It must be noted that the production design of the remake is absolutely gorgeous. Mann was noted for his ability to, as I call it, "put pictures on the screen", and his vision of the Old West in Oklahoma Territory is vast and beautiful (though dusty of course). The movie was filmed in widescreen Cinemascope, with color by Metrocolor (hooray!) While it's not as energetic as the 1931 original (which won the Best Picture Oscar), the 1960 "Cimarron" presents perhaps a more authentic feel. I give it Two Big Thumbs Up, accordingly. ////
Our next fractured flicker is "A Quiet Place 2"(2021), seen in West Los Angeles with my sister (my first trip to a theater since before covid). I won't give you much with this one, because you've either just seen it yourself or are planning to. My biggest take away from "QP2" (and really both QP films) is how well constructed it was. It feels like Krasinski brainstormed his plot to come up with an original concept : blind creatures vs. deaf girl. The use of feedback (i.e.high frequency sound) as a weapon was also ingenious. The simultaneous attack scenarios were very effective, I've never seen that used before. I was also pleased by the spare use of CGI, and for a "quiet" movie, the use of soundtrack as central accompaniment was integral to the premise. Krasinski pushed his scary music to the forefront, almost as a tour guide to the horror. He cued you very loudly when a jump scare was coming, but that is in the old school tradition. I loved everything about the movie. It never spreads itself too thin. Instead, it focuses on only the most important details : the need for shelter, the search for supplies and help, the quest to find the source of the song. The pairing of the deaf girl with the coward (Cillian Murphy) is a strong dramatic coupling, and again it feels like he worked his script out to a tee. Man I wish more filmmakers would take such care. Work your screenplays, people! John Krasinsky did and he's made two Creature Classics. Two Big Thumbs Up for "A Quiet Place 2". Loved it, loved it, loved it. ////
And closing out today's trio, we have "End of Watch"(2012), which Grimsley brought over several nights ago. I've seen it before. It has a solid premise about two young LAPD officers (Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Pena) who patrol the toughest section of south central Los Angeles (Newton Division apparently). They get in over their heads when they uncover the storehouses of a Mexican drug cartel, and become marked for death by the Homies. An OG tips them that the cartel has put a hit on them. The officers are both reckless and heroic, goofing off much of the time but also running into burning buildings to rescue babies. As I said, the premise is quite good, and the story is well developed.
How......ever (and please refer to past blogs for instructions on the drawn out pronunciation of "however").
Howwwww..........evver, having said all of the above, the movie is a trial to sit through. When I came to the end of "End of Watch", I let out a sigh of relief. My fear of an epileptic attack was over.
I don't know when they started seating attention deficit disorder students at the head of film school classes, but the phenomenon has taken root, and in "End of Watch" it's reached an apex. The entire movie was created by hyperkinetic head cases, including the cameraman and editor and screenwriter. Might as well include the director, too, and maybe it's all the same guy. Remember when the shaky camera in "Blair Witch" was thought excessive? Or when "Cloverfield" made it worse a decade later? Those cameramen are steady at the wheel compared to the basket case in this movie, and I know it's not his fault; the director wanted it that way. He also wanted the editor to hold no shot any longer than three seconds (no kidding, and many shots are quicker), hence my epilepsy worries, and he must've asked his screenwriter to have at least three people talking at once, whenever possible, and with at least a dozen four letter words per line of dialogue.
The director is a guy named David Ayer. I'd have guessed he was a USC film student trying to create something new, i.e. the genre of Highly Irritating Filmmaking. But instead he's a screenwriter and former South Central resident (he's a white guy), who also wrote "Training Day", which was also over the top but at least had traditional camerawork. "End of Watch" is destroyed by it's crummy conveyance, not to mention it's use of the F word, for which you'd be a wealthy man or woman if you had a dime for every time it was uttered.
Compared to the care taken by a director/screenwriter like John Krasinski, Ayer takes the cheap and easy way out. But not only that, it's physically uncomfortable and distracting to watch his movie, so it doesn't matter if he has a good story, which he does. His execution of it is terrible, and it's a distressing trend in modern filmmaking.
And you wonder why I don't go see many of today's movies.......holy smokes. In the end, never choose style over substance, which is what "End of Watch" amounts to. It's "Colors" on crack, and it's style is only annoying. Fuggeddabouddit. Thumbs Down. /////
So there you have it, three pictures with varying results. I'll have the other three that remain stockpiled in another synopsis blog coming soon. Have a tremendous day. I send you Tons of Love as always!
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
No comments:
Post a Comment