Short Cuts (1993)

Robert Altman always did have a way to build an amazing cast. And few better than here. But is the rest of the film worth it?

Director Altman wastes no time in showing us the fallacies of his characters, Tim Robbins' Gene Shepard a particularly big douche. Though he is giving up cigarettes, so I suppose he's partially excused. But not for hating his dog of course. Oh no, that's inexcusable. Generally, the men in this film are not very nice. 

As usual with Altman, all the characters are wholly or partly entwined with one another. In "Short Cuts" mostly either through an affair, or being the confidante to the person cheated on. Adultery and jealousy are the main themes, as even those not cheated on are paranoid about it. And those cheating on their spouses are insanely jealous at the spouses of the people they are cheating with. Not to mention everyone else, that they might be double-cheating with. Sounds exhausting? Well, not quite. Altman opts for slow pace and length (more than 3 hours), so there's plenty of time for all this to unfold. 

Naturally with a cast like this, and the best character-director of that time, everybody's good. But who really excels? Madeleine Stowe for one. Perhaps the female character with the most to work on in the script, though she does fade out towards the middle. Surprisingly, the most stellar of the males are Bruce Davison, trying to deal with a fragile wife and his comatose son, as well as his estranged father. The latter having lunch with him in the hospital cafeteria perhaps the best scene of the film, mostly due to Davison. And he hardly has a line in that entire scene. Another underappreciated actor was the late, great Chris Penn. Wonderful. 

Like a Bruckner symphony, you can feel Altman building for a crescendo. Every now and then he will toss you a little storm, but it always calms down again, while the build-up continues. You don't really notice it at first with his slow pace, but then it sneaks up on you, eerily. 

So there is ongoing conflict, plenty of nudity (mostly female, as was the custom at the time) and some of the finest casting of the decade. All topped with very realistically portrayed tragedy and some quirkery. At times it does go on a bit, and it is possible to get bored, particularly if you don't pay attention to all the details. But the crescendo does come, no worries. Later similarly used by Paul Thomas Anderson in Magnolia. And then. Life goes on. 

Oh, in case you wondered. The dog is fine

8/10

Marathon Man (1976)

Has there ever been a cooler and more random start to a film? Well, probably, but 2 old geezers ramming each others' cars on a busy street, screaming at one another until they run into a fire truck and burn... Pretty cool

A great thriller needs to be good at suspense, and this film certainly is that. It leaves little hints and drops a thought into the viewer at just the right time, to get you to the edge of your seat. A rather forgotten art, unfortunately. And to perfect those moods, the uncertainty, you need a few smart surprises. And some very good actors. 

Hoffman is naturally solid, as is Devane. Scheider is very good. Though the real treat here is Laurence Olivier. Such attention to minor detail, and so good at displaying just enough to make you sense something, without fully understanding it. A wonderful gift for an actor in a thriller. And you will struggle to find a more meticulously fiendish foe. 

There are plenty of scenes with violence, all kept uncomfortably realistic. And some just gruelling. Director Schlesinger taking his time in the build-up to make it all the worse. Generally, Schlesinger sets a slow and methodical pace. A perfect fit for Olivier, and for most of the film.

The who-fools-who is not much better than decent, but that's mostly due to the decades of mediocre thrillers that were made later. Schlesinger also takes a risk by leaving a lot a loose threads for a while. Almost too many as you fail to see any connection. But when they come, it's apparent he has a plan behind it all, to a very impressive extent. Yes. Even the 2 old, angry drivers. 

The suspense is at times absolutely riveting, and the script not at all bad. But the protagonist is much less interesting than the villain (though his final scene is very good for him), and quite obscurely involved in a story where everything else is connected. So it's not perfect. But it is good. And it was brilliant when it came, before thrillers were a dime a dozen, using and re-using all the tricks in the bag until they were worn out.

7/10

For the Boys (1991)

The narration starts in present time, with a pretty straight-forward story about getting two (very) ageing stars together at a reunion-concert. Then you get the obligatory cut-backs to their stories as they were, leading up to the main even. Thus meaning James Caan looks old where he's supposed to be young, whereas Bette Midler is (badly) made up to look old in the present, and can barely pull off being young in the past. 

Caan and Midler are front and centre for most of the scenes, and they do have a great spark, particularly on stage. Midler never was a great actress, but this film plays to her strengths as she gets plenty of time on a stage, in front of a big band, revelling in the awe of a full room of sailors. Caan is mostly her side-kick, as perfectly captioned by the poster for the film. Arye Gross has the mishap of playing the non-character turned essential through coincidence, as Midler's chauffer in the present. He does so with due diligence and produces enough warmth to make you care about Midler by exposing her not too well hidden soft core. Other than that, all actors are basically extras. 

The run-time here is almost two and a half hours, but as mentioned the present-story isn't worth more than 5 minutes, and the flash-backs are generally longer than necessary. Hence the length of the film is mostly shoddy editing. Though generally it's lacking in priority as director Mark Rydell prefers to tell a little about most things, refusing to make the necessary choices to give it a good flow and keep the audience entertained at all times. 

Apart from the great chemistry between the leads, this film does offer an array of emotions and it does them well. From the filled hangars of soldiers, to the fear of death in war, the pain of loss, and the tediousness of growing old with the highs (and lows) of your life behind you. 

So it's a nice film, but it could have needed a more disciplined hand on both editing and and directing. Perhaps the star producing wasn't such a great idea. But the final scene is gorgeous, and the last words magnificently sentimental, alone worth the watch.

6/10

Murder by Death (1976)

What. A. Cast! Let's start with the magic comical talent of Alec Guinness. As a blind butler, he provides mischief and laughs at most turn. Peter Sellers' character would definitely be labelled cultural appropriation today, but is funny as hell. His little quotes of wisdom mostly festive treats of comedy. And please don't forget to notice James Cromwell as a Frenchman. 

This is a silly film, and that means the silliness needs to be accompanied by good acting and some intelligence. As for the former, it's in abundance. The start is very enjoyable as the puns and wit fly across the room, and the parodies materialize themselves. The intelligence is a bit more hit and miss, though mostly hit.

As comedies tend to do, the jokes deplete about halfway through. "Murder by Death" does not quite escape this fate, but Sellers and Falk in particular are still able to provide some giggles and laughs. Director Robert Moore changes emphasis towards the murder story, and forgets to bring the jokes at the same pace. Which would be OK, had someone actually bothered to write a decent ending to that part of the story. 

There are some sloppy mistakes by the director that lead to some tedious glitches in the murder mystery. There are some good options, some silly (and not very funny), and some lazy. But the solution is really none of them. If you need 6 good endings to a murder story, make 6. Not 3. 

As a comedy, this is very much above average. There are plenty of laughs and an almost unbelievable array of comical talent. And such different actors, with different strengths. The film also has you intrigued with the murder mystery for a while, though the ending lets us down in a big way. But quite frankly, it's a comedy. It made me laugh more times than they usually do. And for that, I rate it a success.

8/10

Hugo (2011)

Martin Scorsese making a film for children, starring children. Surely not?

"Hugo" is wonderfully inventive in design, both the scenography and the details, not to mention the making of film as it portrays it. Scorsese lays heavy on with the filters to illustrate the different moods, particularly the illuminated yellow to emphasise how Hugo sees the world he feels he's not a part of but desperately wants into. 

For a children's movie, it's imperative to create a warmth without it becoming cheesy. Scorsese surprisingly excels at this, though a lot of the credit must go to the cast. Jude Law only has a few scenes, but he is pitch perfect here. Special mention to Michael Stuhlbarg as well. 

The children are truly wonderful, with Moretz a particular delight. She really was an outstanding actress from a young age. Such a range of emotion and ability to create feelings in others, are rare even for adult actors. Of course, they need to be good, as they are pretty much front and centre for the last two thirds of the film. Sacha Baron Cohen is the (forgettable) menacing threat that need to be a part of all films for the young. He steals a bit heavily from Crabtree in 'Allo 'Allo, but since that is a rather obscure character to most, I'll let that one slide. As for Ben Kingsley, he is stoically magnificent. 

Scorsese leaves a lot of the suspense to be a result of marvel and wondrousness. All helped by a just intricate enough script for the children to follow the breadcrumbs of the mystery. There's also the matter of his wonderful use of angles and sound (or more notably, lack thereof) to underline and deepen the emotions of some of the film's better scenes. None perhaps better than Kingsley crouching over his old drawings. 

As with most films for the younger crowd, parts of the plot are fixed with some nifty coincidences, and a few shortcuts. You'll probably be too busy feeling good and smitten by the marvelling of the actors, though.

The director's biggest achievement, however, is to make you marvel at the sight of very, very old technology. And that, as they say, is saying something.

8/10

What we do in the Shadows (2014)

Mockumentaries are, of course, no longer original. Gone are the days of Spinal Tap. But can one about four vampires living together bring some life to the genre?

Taika Waititi (who along with Clement also wrote and directed) is amusing as Viago, particularly his views on "dating" the women he's about to kill. He is quite one-dimensional, however. Clement as Vladislav is by far the best character, whereas the two others are just unfunny pains to have around. The characters as such are shockingly shallow (yes, even for a comedy) considering the writers had thousands of years of history to get something good out of. With large parts of the cast so uninteresting, the jokes had better be good.

There are definitely fun moments here, some of the jokes are excellent. However, the set-up really isn't. It follows the genre a bit too meticulously, meaning it comes off formulaic at times. They simply apply everyday life to vampires, and try to pass it off as smart and original. I understand that that is much of the premise for a mockumentary, but it's stale enough as a concept now for a film to need more. 

Another limitation of the mockumentary is the filming and the cut-in interviews. Both tedious and adding nothing in terms of humour nor cleverness. Having a camera crew "on site", means the angles will be bad and when the concept has been done to death over a couple of decades, it offers very little. The action-scenes are usually frenzied and accompanied by extremely annoying music, adding to the feeling of unwelcome editing-chaos. 

In single scenes, this flick is quite smart and extremely funny. But as a whole, it seems a bit of a diamond in the rough. Like a good idea worked too little on, or by the wrong people. 

5/10

Gosford Park (2001)

 

As always with Altman, you get a full ensemble, and Gosford Park is a particular treat. Maggie Smith is naturally pitch perfect as an aristocratic bitch, particularly revelling in the small misfortune of Ryan Phillipe. Helen Mirren is wonderful as the subdued head of the servants doing all things in accordance with the old traditions. Michael Gambon and Kristen Scott Thomas could of course play aristocratic hosts from the 20's blind. And just the look in Charles Dance's eyes brings glee and excitement of the arrogance to come. Richard E. Grant is also worthy of a special mention. 

Altman lets the story centre around Kelly McDonald a lot of the time, which isn't the best option. Not because she's bad, but she has a rather demure and uninteresting character, despite the directors best attempts at giving her a background story. Generally, the casting and acting is one of the more solid of the decade, and there's hardly a flaw to be found. 

Gosford Park pays particular notice to the servants, a feature missed entirely by Stephen Fry as a disappointingly bumbling detective, and that is quite clever. The director does a wonderful job at portraying the idle gossip amongst them, the small joys of eavesdropping to the music played by the higher classes, and the imagined hierarchy amongst them. With all that involves in terms of suspicions and envy, even among those who have little. Sort of a poorer mirror of their masters. 

The film takes a long time getting started, setting up little controversies all around the manor. I do love little, smart breadcrumbs, but there was perhaps room for some editing. The murder doesn't occur until well into the second half. And here lies the film's greatest weakness. Altman is a bit too busy with his actors and all the pieces of information to pay attention to the actual murder story

The scenery is British as can be and quite lovely in all respects. Though, grey and always raining of course. As for the inside, it's very lavish and with minute attention to details.

If you want an Agatha Christie, you might well be better off with, well Agatha Christie. The murder in Gosford Park isn't really what Altman wants the film to be about. So it isn't. It's about the fates of some key characters, and the dynamics of the people in a manor. As a stylistic study, and an ensemble film, it is quite delectable. 

7/10