background

Monday, November 10, 2014

Rohan: "Inter" Stellar? Not Quite.

(A new month of posting begins, somewhat belatedly, with our friend Rohan Morbey, returning to the Jaman blog to drop his guardedly-good review of Christopher Nolan's Interstellar. Always happy to cross-post the good (or otherwise) word, appearing in its original form as always over at his site Closing Credits - do follow him on the Twitters!)

A quick note before I begin the review:


Regardless of what I or others may think about Interstellar, you need to see the film in 70mm IMAX to truly experience the film as the director wanted it to be seen. The advent of digital screening may be, to some, an improvement over film projected at 24 FPS due to clarity unseen before, but nothing can match the beautiful grain and slight imperfections of watching a film. The detail is so rich, you cannot mistake it for anything else and, if for no other reason, I recommend you see Interstellar, or any other movie, in 70mm whenever possible. If you need more convincing, read this from IMAX and tell me it’s not worth the extra money:

“When presented on 70mm IMAX, the sequences shot on IMAX are printed full quality in their native format- the highest quality imaging format ever devised, offering almost ten times the resolution of standard formats.”

Often I refer to truly great cinema: those movies which strive to go beyond the expectations of conventional cinema and storytelling and provide audiences with perfect examples of their genre, as having the ability to combine both ambition and ability – the ambition to make something different or new, and the ability to pull it off. Whether that’s large-scale three hour epics like Lawrence of Arabia and Apocalypse Now or smaller films such as Mulholland Drive or Annie Hall, the result is the same regardless of genre, budget, or age. These films do not aim for heights they are unable to reach, nor do they leave you thinking of better examples of similar movies.



Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar is a rare example wherein a film maker shows lofty ambition to offer audiences something they may never have seen before, with an innate ability to create images unseen in modern cinema and to push the limits of in-camera technology to unimagined levels. Yet, despite all Nolan’s flawless technical ability Interstellar is a frustratingly flawed film. It wants to be something more accomplished than the screenplay allows it to be, and the impressive visuals can only serve so much before the audience is left needing more.

Watching the film I was often struck by just how polarized the visuals and screenplay were; the film seems to be at odds with itself, as if it were two screenplays written independently and forced to merge. On one side the film sets out to be a visual experience like no other, and although perhaps not always entirely original in what it shows (let’s not discard other great space exploration depictions just because Interstellar is the shiny and new movie), the way it shows what it does is a joy to behold. On the other side the film attempts to deal with deeper themes of love transcending time and space, the science behind wormholes, time travel, and the possible end of Earth’s population. That’s very heavy stuff for any writer or director to contend with, but especially hard when it’s your first time approaching material this multi-layered whilst making a $165 million production at the same time. While one of The Nolans (Christopher and brother Jonathan) is a film maker par excellence, as a team they have yet to collaborate on a screenplay which is solid from beginning to end.

In his very best films - The Prestige, Memento, and the majority of Inception - Nolan allows his natural flair for visual storytelling to override the need for spoon feeding information to his audience. In Interstellar nothing is left to the audience once the space travel comes into play; before this, the film is really quite excellent as it leaves out detail surrounding how Earth came to be how it is when the movie starts and we just accept this is reality. This is great film making, but reversing the logic of your entire premise is not, just for the sake of having a happy ending. The film asks the question ‘would you sacrifice yourself and never see your loved ones again if you could save millions?’ but we expect the film to go through with this, not cop out with the best of both worlds.

Interstellar clearly sets out to be different and original, but it does not earn the shift in tone in the final act. Nolan cited Close Encounters Of The Third Kind as an influence on Interstellar for the way it humanizes the experience of a world-changing event, yet Interstellar comes nowhere near the payoff of Spielberg’s picture. Instead, the entire sequence on the snow planet that you’ve seen in trailers and posters is a monumental disappointment in its desire to inject action, explosions, danger and twists for no reason beyond third-act thrills. As Gravity showed last year, there is plenty which can go wrong in space without the need for a token antagonist to appear after two hours of believable science fiction peril. Again, the film doesn’t earn it but that’s not to say there aren’t scenes between people which work very well, especially those between the astronauts and the people on Earth. Which is more important; their time in space or people’s time on Earth? This provides the focus for the film’s very best emotional scene.

The cast is excellent throughout. Though Matthew McConaughey provides a superb leading man performance, I genuinely believe switching the roles for Anne Hathaway and Jessica Chastain would have improved the film. However, the characters are so thin that any actor could be replaced by another of equal standing and the film would work just as well.

I cannot pretend one viewing is enough to fully understand the film, or at least to critique the science behind it. There is a lot going on and the near three hour running time is filled with ideas which either work or do not, depending on your willingness to accept the directions it takes but at least there are ideas and originality on display which we do not get to see very often and for that reason alone Interstellar is a recommendation. Paired with visuals which have to been seen in 70mm IMAX to be fully realized, Interstellar may not rival the very best action of films from 2014 but it’s at the top of the list of the best of the rest. Certainly not good enough considering the brilliance of what we know the director can achieve, but by no means a failure either.

Thursday, October 30, 2014

and Welcome to the Horror Show!

Ten horror movies that span the genre. We're not trying to put out a BEST HORROR MOVIES EVER, END OF list, 'cause that'd be presumptuous. No no, the horror movies on this list have two things in common: that we like them (and are trying to assemble a list of movies you might not have seen); and they're available on multiple platforms, like Netflix, Amazon, Fandor, etc. Simply click the title of each movie and you'll get to the page on the Jaman site that'll show you where you can watch them. Okay? Here we go!

The Mummy's Hand - The original Mummy (with icon Boris Karloff) can be found on Netflix, but it's first sequel is a fine follow-up, and is more fun. A traveling magician and his daughter wind up accompanying (and sponsoring) a group of fly-by-night archaeologists seeking an Egyptian tomb. They run afoul of a wizard guarding the tomb, and before long a mummy is rampaging beneath the full moon. It's a bit of a hodge-podge, but the atmospheric bits deliver, the comic relief is actually funny (not always the case in horror-comedies), and it just has a bracing energy that makes for fun viewing. One of the better Universal horror sequels.





Black Sabbath - Speaking of Karloff, later in the venerated icon's career he could be seen hosting and appearing in the middle episode of this colorful and insane triptych of horror tales from horror master Mario Bava. We feted Bava for his centenary, celebrated in July of this year, and earnestly recommend this for anyone knew to Bava's oeuvre. Especially this week!



The Curse of Frankenstein - Hammer Films, the celebrated studio that practically defined horror from the late 50s into the 70s, began their horror cycle in earnest with this, the first of several film sin a long running Frankenstein franchise. Peter Cushing appears for the first time as Baron Frankenstein, making the first of many, many attempts to bring life to the dead. Cushing's work in this series would ensure his status as a horror icon; this status would elude Christopher Lee (who appears here as the Creature) for a while, but he would certainly attain it as well.


The Curse of the Werewolf - Again Hammer Films (and director Terence Fisher) make with the curses. This one falls upon a young Oliver Reed, who was sadly born under a bad sign and eventually transforms into the title creature in the light of the full moon. The period trappings and atmosphere are stunning in this one, as is its steady pacing. This movie received substantial acclaim in 1961 as not just a great horror movie, but simply one of the great British movies of the year.





Ju-On 2 aka Ju-On 2: The Grudge - It is safe to guess that most people with a profound love of contemporary Japanese horror have sampled extensively from the long-running Ju-On/The Grudge series. Directed by Takashi Shimizu (even the American remakes), the series is largely set in a house haunted by the ghosts of a woman and a child who were killed there. These ghosts lash out in anger at anyone who enters the house, often following them to their own homes, profoundly unsettling familiar spaces before unleashing supernatural wrath. Though some object to the series' apparent simple rehashes of many of the same themes and incidents, approaching them as variations on a theme shows a master horror filmmaker at work. Most of the films can be seen independently of one another; this one was the first one we saw, and, quite frankly, it scared the hell out of us. (Kudos to its startlingly beautiful coda, one of horror's finest grace notes. We wouldn't dare spoil it, but can't believe no one talks about it.)

The Moth Diaries - This barely got any kind of theatrical release so we're delighted to see it available on so many platforms. Director Mary Harron (American Psycho) helms a nice little B-picture about a student at an all-girls school who finds herself quite literally bewitched by a new arrival to the school. The Gothic symbolism is discussed maybe a little too directly, but it bleeds beautifully into the nicely-sustained atmosphere, with a couple of jaw-dropping visual moments as well. In a just world, Harron would get to make a movie like this every year.





Fright Night (1985) - Before the Scream series enshrined the ironic stance as the dominant approach to horror, the original Fright Night took an almost post-modern, knowingly referential approach to its genre. The story of a young horror fan who discovers that the new next door neighbor is a vampire, and his enlistment of washed up horror host Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall, just stellar) to battle the threat, received a cult following immediately upon release, and even garnered critical appreciation for its knowing nods to horror movie history. Its scares remain potent (with some lovely non-CGI creature effects throughout), its characters three-dimensional, its humor funny, and there are a number of fine lesser-known 80s tunes on the soundtrack. The remake is decently conceived and crafted, yet unnecessary.



Berberian Sound Studio - The famous Italian horror movies (including the gialli, the gory mysteries derided from pulp literature) are only sporadically available on line. But Berberian Sound Studio is happily fairly easy to find, and is well worth watching (and, crucially, hearing). Toby Jones is just dandy as Guilderoy, a repressed British sound engineer brought in to shape the sound of an Italian horror film. Vegetables and other benign objects are mercilessly torn apart as Guilderoy explores various sonic extremes, and though we never see the images they accompany, Guilderoy's mounting stress and insanity are plainly evident.





Silent Hill - This adaptation of the acclaimed (and often downright terrifying) video game franchise gets a bad rap, from both casual viewers and devotees of the series, which I don't understand. We're big devotees of the notion of movies-as-environments, and appreciate the Silent Hill movies for so lovingly capturing the look and feel of the creepy town of Silent Hill, as much a mental landscape as a place on a map, people by desperate residents and terrifying creatures. Mychael Danna's score leans heavily on the acclaimed soundtracks of the games by Akira Yamaoka. Even if the story doesn't grab you, we eagerly recommend getting lost in Silent Hill this Halloween...



American Mary - And though we haven't seen this final entry (which we're nevertheless pretty sure we can call the most extreme movie on this list), we're excited by what we've heard about its makers, twin sisters Jen and Sylvia Soska. The story of a disgruntled medical student (Katharine Isabelle, herself finally a growing cult phenomenon after years of work) who plies her talents within an underground society bent on body modification was won numerous awards and much attention for its makers, who continue to turn out more and bigger movies with winning confidence and infectious verve.



Happy Halloween!

Friday, October 24, 2014

Rohan: Tanks for nothing, Fury

(Always happy to welcome our friend Rohan Morbey to the Jaman blog, even if he's less than effusive over Fury, the new WWII movie starring Brad Pitt. But he's letting us cross-post his review, which appears over at his site Closing Credits - do follow him on the Twitters!)

War is hell. War is unforgiving. War is unrelenting. War for a soldier is dirty, grim, and each day could be your last. Movies have showed us this for decades now, even if they barely even scratch the surface of what it might be like in reality. I thank God I’ll never have to experience it; and as a film lover I thank brilliant film makers like Steven Spielberg, Oliver Stone, Francis Ford Coppola, and Ridley Scott for making some truly stunning war movies in the modern era.

David Ayer is not one such recipient of my thanks, and what frustrated me most about his WWII effort Fury is the missed opportunity it represents. Perhaps I had the wrong expectations but I assumed a talent like Brad Pitt, an actor who is so often drawn to quality and challenging material, would attach himself to a war movie which had something new to say. Fury is about five members of a tank crew towards the end of WWII, lead by Pitt, but Ayer spends little time showing the audience the day-to-day life of the men whose figurative home is a Sherman tank, and focuses all his efforts on making a viscerally impressive but emotionally and creatively empty film.

So void is Ayer's screenplay of any drive in story or narrative you could walk into a screening of Fury at any moment and have not missed anything. The film is full of stock characters (tough leader, new and scared recruit, man driven to the edge, token ethnic) and clichés we’ve seen countless times before which render the story dead by the hour mark. More time devoted to these men, their backstory and actually seeing how a tank is a vital part of the war effort, as opposed to just a machine which can shoot large calibre rounds which make for a fantastic sound and explosions, could have made this a unique war movie. There’s a scene where the caterpillar track is detached and the tank stranded; I wanted to see the track getting fixed, or any side of a soldier’s duty when he’s not carrying a gun, but this never comes. Instead the film is just one action scene after another, punctuated with one extended scene in a house (which deserves special mention later) without any real sense of purpose. Why do we care about these men other than the fact that they’re not Nazis? We don’t.

I won’t deny that the film looks terrific in its attention to detail, and the sound design is superb throughout; it’ll make a great demo disc for Blu-ray and home cinema no doubt. Ayer also directs the film with a professionalism not seen in his previous efforts and I didn’t spot a handheld camera (which is a small mercy for anyone who saw Sabotage earlier this year). One standout action scene, in which the US Sherman squares off against a single German Tiger, treats us to the kind of unique battle sequence which Fury, I hoped, would be all about. The tactics, movements, timing and teamwork is all on show with Ayer covering all the angles. I loved it.

The problem is Ayer is a pretty bland director when he’s not being creative, yet he’s intolerable when he is being creative. The finale is a forced, overlong and preposterous sequence where the tank takes on a few hundred German soldiers who only decide to use anti-tank missiles towards the end. Pitt and his crew stage an Alamo-style face off because the film was in need of an ending and for no other reason, and it is here where Fury shows just how confused it is; Nazis are mown down against a backdrop of over-stylized yellow smoke and red flashing lights (it’s hell, I get it) by our American heroes in typical Hollywood movie style, yet the final shot is of the tank and the mass of bodies surrounding it, with the score rising complete with choir voices to give it that heavenly, Godly quality, and Ayer asks his audience; “Isn’t war hell, guys? Just look at all these bodies.” That might have some impact if those same bodies weren’t being used as cannon fodder just minutes before.

The one standout scene, as mentioned above, was one which was so nearly great, so nearly a sign of well observed and subtle commentary on war, men and reality. I won’t spoil it here as it’s the key scene in the film and the one which most people will talk about; but Ayer shows he doesn’t quite have the ear for dialogue and understanding of how and when to change the dynamics of a scene like a Quentin Tarantino, whose style the scene evokes. It simply goes on too long, hammers home its message quite clumsily and is followed immediately by the most predictable of all clichés.

Fury offers precious little we haven't seen before from war movies, and ends up getting lost in the cracks between ‘gritty’ action movies and thoughtful commentary on war. It isn’t good enough as either to be considered one of the greats it so desperately wants to be.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Recommended!: The Lair Of The White Worm (1988)

So that thing where you find out that an actor you really like for his current work turns out to have starred in a movie that you loved back in the day? It happened to us this week when we discovered (uncovered? it was staring us in the face, after all) that Peter Capaldi, whose work we adored in the political comedy In The Loop and now enjoy in the title role on Doctor Who, starred in one of our favorite genre movies from the 80s: the insanely camp, gorgeously creepy, and very funny The Lair Of The White Worm.

Capaldi's charming and (in this admittedly outre context) believable as a Scots archaeologist who unearths the skull of an ancient worm creature while digging on a Derbyshire estate. An early-career Hugh Grant is also fine as the young and pleasantly assholish Lord of the Manor, who joins the battle against a growing coven of acolytes of a religion dedicated to worshipping said creature. But the movie unquestionably belongs to Amanda Donohoe, who plays Lady Sylvia Marsh, the smooth and slinky high priestess of the worm cult who steals the skull for her own depraved rituals. Donohoe is very much the engine that powers this thing, effortlessly able to drop the high-class veneer for an earthier persona. Or a fanged and body-makeupped snake creature!

The Lair Of The White Worm is one of a few low-budget genre pictures director Ken Russell turned out in the 1980s. One suspects that it's a very loose adaptation of Bram Stoker's original story, but so determined is it to be its own thing, a vehicle expressly made for the titillation and freaking out of open-minded cult audiences that its probably-substantial infidelities to the text that spawned it are cheerfully overlooked. There are probably freakier movies you could engage this Halloween but we doubt most of them are as fun or sexy as The Lair Of The White Worm.


Monday, October 20, 2014

Happy Birthday, Bela Lugosi!

It's been interesting reading about Dracula, the play that made the rounds of theatres in the 1920s. It is from this adaptation of Bram Stoker's classic that we receive the popular vision of Dracula as a smooth, urbane supernatural menace.

It seems Stoker had long tried to interest Sir Henry Irving (the famous stage actor that Stoker had long assisted/toadied for) in playing Dracula onstage, only to be continually rebuffed by the actor. After Stoker's death, his widow Florence entered a deal with Deane to allow him to adapt Dracula for the stage. Playing to the conventions of the day, Deane retooled the title character into a suave, exotic foreign presence who could easily mingle with polite society, unleashing his menace from within it. Deane's initial adaptation, though not a critical success, proved extremely popular with audiences from 1924 onward. And thanks to the somewhat exorbitant financial demands of the widow Stoker, the only way Deane could turn a profit from his adaptation was to tour it. Extensively.

For its 1927 Broadway run the play was extensively revised by writer John Balderston (one of many things streamlined out of the Balderston rewrite was, intriguingly a female Quincy Morris). A new actor was sought for the title role, preferably a non-name who would work for cheap. As luck would have it, an experienced Hungarian actor with nothing to lose came up for the role, and though no one could have expected it, this actor, born Béla Ferenc Dezső Blaskó, would come to be a very personification of movie horror.

The rest is history, with Universal's 1931 Dracula drawing heavily on the Broadway production, even enlisting Lugosi for the title role. (The play's Van Helsing, Edward Van Sloan, wasn't far behind.) Bela Lugosi became a horror icon overnight, but, much to his consternation, he became typecast as a horror villain almost as quickly. The disrespect suffered by the horror genre over the years, combined with some severe health problems and addictions, would plague Lugosi to an early grave. But he defined Dracula at a crucial period in film history, and remains fondly remembered by horror fans to this day. And his surprisingly extensive stage career speaks to actor capable of far more than even the iconic roles for which he's best known - wouldn't you LOVE to have seen Lugosi play Jesus?


It is of course the perfect season to reacquaint oneself with Lugosi's work, and we're delighted to call him out on this, his birthday.  Dracula, as we've argued before, is always worth revisiting, and you could even chase it with Son of Frankenstein, one of our favorite Universal horrors, with Lugosi in another villainous but otherwise completely different role. Or see him take on a rare comic role in Ninotchka.

Blog archive