Given the attention my last post got, I was reluctant to follow it up with something this mundane, but given recent electoral events, comments on the films I’ve watched in the last month or so might serve as a nice distraction.
Up (2009)
(Some spoilers here, in case you’ve not seen it)
So I finally got round to seeing Up (which is currently resting at 114 on imdb’s ranking). It was a very likeable film. As you’d expect from Pixar the animation is great. It’s not a big or clever film, and doesn’t seem to do anything remarkable in terms of storytelling/direction, but it’s nice. I had been warned by several people that the opening scene was particularly tear-jerky. I didn’t think it was that bad (though it reeked of emotional manipulation). His wife did get fridged pretty quickly though, which brings me to the main thing I was left thinking after this film. Why should a film of this sort fail the Bechdel Test?
Other than the quickly fridged wife, the only named female character (Kevin, the giant bird) gets no lines. Pixar needs to really get it together, as it really isn’t hard to include female characters in a film. They’ve not got a great track record for this. Admittedly, I’ve not seen Brave, which I have been informed is a marked improvement. That said, there is frankly no excuse for this film failing to meet the low bar that is the Bechdel test. I find it particularly bad when those making movies directed primarily at children (as the members of our society seemingly most subject to influences) don’t care to think about this before making such a film.
It’s also not great in terms of any ethnic diversity, but vast disparity of gender strikes me as even less defensible (for reasons I won’t delve into here).
So all-in-all, I did enjoy the film, but reflections upon it make me rather uncomfortable.
Snatch (2000)
Snatch (which has crept up the imdb rankings to 92 in recent months) is a lot of fun. This was one of the films I’d definitely seen most of, but probably with a few drinks and not as seriously as the film warranted.
It’s a classic London gangster escapade. The story is, in its own way, quite intricate, employing just the right amount of bizarre chance to leave it believable, while maintaining the tone and still making light of how the best laid plans may still be doomed fail.
Some great memorable phrases here. Notably the “sneaky fucking Russians” is one that comes to mind for many of us whenever Russians are involved in anything these days (sometimes appropriately, sometimes less so). Sorry Russia.
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Here’s another pretty fun film. Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds (imdb rank 100) features a jew who escaped the Nazis who killed her family, a group of Americans (the Basterds) roaming around occupied France killing Nazis, and a British-American plot to take out Nazi VIPs.
Having recently watched Django, and given certain similarities between them (the historical setting, the casting of Christoph Watlz), I found myself making comparisons between the films. I definitely think Django is a better film. We get less acquainted with all the characters in Inglourious, so aren’t quite as invested in them as we were with the fewer main characters in Django. Christoph Waltz was brilliant again, and his screen-stealing performance was probably the highlight of the film, but, because of the large cast, he received less screen time than in Django too.
The general story isn’t exactly a masterpiece either. Every scene on its own is entertaining, and the story makes sense, but there doesn’t seem to be a point to it all. Maybe that doesn’t matter.
I definitely enjoyed it. Standard Tarantino in many ways – gratuitous violence, exciting scenes – but not as sophisticated as Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs.
For a Fistful of Dollars (1964)
For a Fistful of Dollars (imdb rank 230) is the first of the Dollars Trilogy, which later included A Few Dollars More and The Good, The Bad and the Ugly. We are introduced to Clint Eastwood’s “the man with no name” – an odd description for a man who has a name (and a different one) in each of these films.
In this film, Eastwood’s character – a man of expert marksmanship with a gun and a mercenary attitude – and arrives in a town controlled by two families, and decides to play them against each other to make as much money as he can.
The highlight of the film for me would be the final gunfight, which would look familiar to anyone who knows the Back to the Future trilogy.
Other than the Clint Eastwood character, none of the characters are particularly engaging in this film. Even the man with no name (actually called “Joe” in this film) isn’t that likeable. I guess this film is more valuable in that it paved the way the the other spaghetti westerns to be made, and specifically the later two films in Sergio Leone’s trilogy.
A Few Dollars More (1965)
I definitely liked For a Few Dollars More (currently rated 94 on imdb’s list) a lot more than the first one. Though the music was good in the first, it was better in the second. The characters and storyline are also vastly superior.
The story begins with two rival bounty hunters. One is “the man with no name” (actually called “Manco” in this film) and the other is “the man in black” (Colonel Douglas Mortimer). Despite Eastwood’s character receiving more of the screen time, Lee Van Cleef’s portrayal of the man in black is much more gripping. His character is older, and more sophisticated and mysterious throughout.
There are several nice twists and turns in the story. The main villain of the story, El Indio, is also quite a good villain. Flashbacks from his past, as well as his attitude in the present, show him to be a truly cruel, sadistic character.
Though I think The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is probably the highlight of this genre, this film is definitely a decent number 2.
The Seventh Seal (1957)
This has to be the weirdest film I’ve seen in a while. The Seventh Seal (imdb. rank 129) is a Swedish film set during the Black Death, and begins with a Swedish knight being told by Death that his time has come. The knight then challenges him to a game of chess, and makes a deal that if he wins, Death does not take him.
The film deals with a lot of thoughts about we might feel about death, life, and God. Bengt Ekerot’s portrayal of Death – an extremely pale man, with a dark cloak and a scythe, who likes to play chess – has become iconic in popular culture. I this character is the best part of the film.
To be entirely honest, if I didn’t have to watch the film as part of my challenge – if say, I just happened to watch the first twenty minutes on late night TV or something – I probably wouldn’t have watched the whole thing. I didn’t find it particularly gripping. Though it does engage with some of the ‘big questions’, the treatment is quite superficial. It’s as if the tone of the film is supposed to help us answer some of these questions when the events/dialogue don’t give us answers, but this just left me feeling tired/melancholic. A sense of foreboding surrounds most of the film. I’m sure there were clever features I simply wasn’t savvy enough to grasp, but other than in relation to history of cinema (and particularly the personification of Death), I didn’t find this film particularly interesting or engaging.
Joe Slater: A Rantspace 