Archive | April, 2014

Drunken Angel – Review

29 Apr

Akira Kurosawa may very well be the most well known and respected Japanese film makers to ever work in the industry. Throughout his entire life, all the way to the end, Kurosawa has been responsible for many, many excellent stories with wonderful technical work. The film that Kurosawa said to be his real breakthrough piece was his film from 1948 Drunken Angel. This is also the first time he collaborated with actor Toshiro Mifune and composer Fumio Hayasaka. While Drunken Angel doesn’t quite look as good as Kurosawa’s other films, it is a deeply powerful film that left me thinking about a lot of different things and trying to pick out all of the different messages about post-war Japan and self worth that I could find.

Yoidore_tenshi_poster

Dr. Sanada (Takashi Shimura) is an alcoholic physician working in a post-war Tokyo slum with a festering sump in the center. Matsunaga (Toshiro Mifune) is a small time yakuza gangster with an ego that’s much more inflated than his actual position in the organization. Matsunaga is a cocky, violence prone man who lashes out at Sanada when he is informed that he is suffering from a possibly mortal case of tuberculosis. At first Matsunaga doesn’t believe what the doctor is saying, but soon decides to be responsible and fight the disease. That is, until fellow yakuza member Okada (Reisaburo Yamamoto) gets out of prison and makes Matsunaga resume his old way of life which includes women, gambling, and alcohol. When Okada makes his motives truly known and threatens Sanada because of something that happened before he was even in prison, Matsunaga sees everything he has been doing wrong and fights his condition so he can get revenge on Okada and defend the doctor that cares for him so much.

Akira Kurosawa has an astute ability to take a story that may otherwise feel boring or like nothing’s really going on and turn it into a story that’s filled with many different layers, themes, messages, allegories and any other fancy word to describe how excellent this movie really is. It’s a quiet film, to say the least, but the imagery is as haunting as a movie as real as this gets. Kurosawa seems to take influence from the American noir films of this time period, but also from Italian neorealism that was around in the early to mid 20th century. This film does feel very real and very personal, not just to Kurosawa, but to the entire nation of Japan.

Drunken Angel

Drunken Angel is more than a story about the relationship between an alcoholic doctor and a violent yakuza gangster. It’s very clear throughout the movie that this has a lot to do with the mood and ideals of post-war Japan. The sump in the middle of the slum is a perfect image of what was left of the landscape and the Japanese spirit after the was and the devastating effects of the the nuclear bombs. The characters, being constantly intoxicated and violent, seem to bring to life the weakness and horror of the Japanese mind and body. But this movie isn’t just about the effects of war. On a much smaller level, there are themes of masculinity, weakness, and self worth. These, in my opinion, are the strongest elements of the movie. If someone was to ask me what Drunken Angel was about, I would simply reply with one word. Weakness.

Interestingly enough, Kurosawa originally planned for the story of this movie to focus mainly on Dr. Sanada with the character of Matsunaga being a minor side character. After seeing how well Toshiro Mifune acted in the role, Kurosawa then made Mifune’s character much more important. These two characters now work together as the main protagonists throughout the film. Takashi Shimura, who became a regular in Kurosawa’s movies just like Mifune, is excellent as Dr. Sanada and plays his complicated role to perfection. We want to hate him for being so irresponsible and weak, but he is so good hearted we can’t help but love the guy. Mifune is still the scene stealer here. His transformation from swaggering gangster to a man overcome by his disease is tragic to watch. Tragic only begins to describe his character, and Mifune focuses all his energy into making him more than he was ever supposed to be.

Drunken Angel is the movie that put Kurosawa on the map so that he could go on to do other classics like Seven Samurai and Yojimbo amongst others. This is a much more quiet film than those others, but that doesn’t mean it’s any less significant. This film succeeds at digging into real problems for Japan at the time, but also digging into the darkest corners of people to expose the weaknesses that threaten to bring them down. There are many reasons that make this movie so great, and even if it doesn’t quite fit your style, do yourself the honor of watching this film made by one of the greatest film makers to ever live.

Wild at Heart – Review

25 Apr

I’m a huge fan of David Lynch and could realistically talk about him for an entire week straight without getting bored. When I first saw his short film The Alphabet, I didn’t really know how crazy film makers could get. Ever since then it’s been a wild ride in my attempts to find some of the most insane movies to ever have been created. This all ties back into David Lynch because he’s never let me down when it comes to mind boggling weirdness. Even The Elephant Man has some pretty strange moments, but Wild at Heart shows the same type of odd characters and situations that were present in his previous film Blue Velvet and his short lived television show Twin Peaks.

936full-wild-at-heart-poster

Lula (Laura Dern) and Sailor (Nicolas Cage) are two young people in love who are torn apart when Sailor kills a man trying to protect himself and Lula. This entire attack was organized by Lula’s psychotic and overly protective mother, Marietta Fortune (Diane Ladd), who forbids Lula from seeing Sailor when he gets out of prison. Of course, Lula disobeys her mother and runs off with Sailor as soon as he gets out with dreams of moving to California. As the two lovers spend their time making love and speeding down the highways, Marietta hires her private detective boyfriend Johnnie Farragut (Harry Dean Stanton) to track them down, but she also hires her other boyfriend, a gangster named Marcellus Santos (J.E. Freeman) to kill Sailor when he is found. Lula and Sailor have other problems, however, as they follow their version of the Yellow Brick Road into a small Texas town that makes hell seem comfortable. Problems that threaten to tear their beautiful relationship apart.

Wild at Heart shows a cool transition between the older style of David Lynch with films like Eraserhead and Blue Velvet and his later works like Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive. It has the same dirty characters and brutal violence seen in the early films and the trippy sequences and the more oddball characters of his later movie. While this movie does act as a bridge between the older and the newer David Lynch, it doesn’t quite have the intensity and mystery of his other films. As many strange characters and scenes there are in this movie, it doesn’t have the most fun aspect of David Lynch movies: figuring out what it all means.

WildAtHeart_PUB05

Wild at Heart is certainly a romance, except seen through the twisted eyes of David Lynch, much like how Danny Boyle’s  A Life Less Ordinary had a more frenetic view on romance. The style of this movie is very effective, and really is the coolest part of the movie. The jazz music mixed with the heavy metal music Sailor and Lula listen to combined with the rockabilly attitude of Sailor is just ludicrous in a way that only David Lynch could pull off. The supporting cast that I didn’t mention in my synopsis really contribute to that insane “Lynchian” factor. Crispin Glover’s small role is memorable, even though he has three lines of dialogue at best. Returning players who’ve worked with Lynch before include Sheryl Lee in a small part as the Good Witch from The Wizard of Oz, Jack Nance as a crazy rocket scientist, and Isabella Rossellini as a criminal who has a shady past with Sailor. The scene stealer in this movie is Willem DaFoe as an off the wall hit man/bank robber named Bobby Peru. Everything from his outfit to the way he talks is completely ridiculous, creepy, and hilarious in the darkest sort of way.

Out of all of David Lynch’s movies that I’ve seen, Wild at Heart is one of my least favorites. I do love the style and the crazy romance, but it doesn’t have elements that made other films in Lynch’s filmography as memorable as they are. The plot seemed to be on the straight and narrow the entire way through, with only scenes that broke up the predictability of it all. The word “predictable” is a weird way to describe a movie of this film maker, but the plot seemed to follow a pretty straight line. There were small moments that shocked me and made me laugh, but as a whole it moved in a pretty normal way which I don’t want to see when I put on a movie made by David Lynch.

The video above shows the awesome first scene of Wild at Heart, and the insanity really doesn’t slow down at all. Lynch even made the slower parts of the movie feel really weird and nightmarish. Unfortunately, the plot wasn’t as interesting as the smaller scenes that were in the movie. The soundtrack and the performances were great and David Lynch’s entire style make this movie still really, really cool. Looking at it in terms of Lynch’s entire filmography, it doesn’t quite hold up to Lynch’s masterpieces like EraserheadBlue Velvet, and Mulholland Drive. Still, if you’re a fan of David Lynch or movies that make you feel very weird, Wild at Heart is still a hellish road trip worth taking.

Frailty – Review

23 Apr

To get into the mind of a serial killer can be close to an impossible task. With everything going on in the world, there can be many triggers that can change a seemingly normal and functioning mind into that of a psychotic and murderous lunatic. This is the strongest part of the film Frailty, the directorial debut of the well known character actor Bill Paxton and the feature screenwriting debut of Brent Hanley. This movie made a big mark when it was released in 2001, with people like James Cameron, Sam Raimi, and Stephen King all hailing it as one of the best horror films to come out in years. This is a powerful movie that would’ve been a perfect psychological thriller if it wasn’t for a god awful ending that has the potential to spoil the entire experience.

frailty-poster-big

In the present day, FBI Agent Wesley Doyle (Powers Boothe) is called into the office late one night because a man calling himself Fenton Meiks (Matthew McConaughey) says he has important information on the serial killer known as the “God’s Hand Killer.” According to Fenton, his brother Adam, who has recently committed suicide, is the killer. The evidence for his claims dates back to 1979, where the younger Fenton (Matt O’Leary) and Adam (Jeremy Sumpter) are living a simple yet happy life with their widower father (Bill Paxton). That happiness is destroyed one night when their father claims to have been visited by an angel with the instructions to collect a grouping of holy weapons then find and destroy demons that are walking the earth disguised as humans. As the bodies begin to pile up, the young Fenton becomes more and more uncomfortable with his father’s “mission” and knows that somehow he has to put a stop to it. In the present time, as an older Fenton recants this story, Agent Doyle begins to suspect that something isn’t right with this mysterious visitor in the night.

The first two thirds of this movie are really something special in the most dark and twisted kind of way. What we have is a brutally clever and psychological story about a man who seems to lose all sense of reality, and in doing so completely shatters the psychological well being of his two young sons. This makes for a very interesting story that was made scary by its realism. Anyone who reads up on serial killers knows that for a lot of them, God is a major factor in their twisted psyches. This isn’t to say that all serial killers murder people because of God, but there have been instances in the past where the phrase “God told me to do it” has been uttered. It didn’t have to be God that made Fenton’s father feel the need to kill. The whole point of interest is that he went from a normal human being to something a whole lot worse, but Frailty almost plays this in a way where we don’t want to hate the killer.

frailty-bill-paxton-1

 

As I was saying, and let me really emphasize this, the first two thirds of the movie are note perfect and part of the reason is because of the superb acting on display. Matthew McConaughey doesn’t really have a huge part, but his acting is entirely believable and appropriately eerie. Bill Paxton steals the show as the perfect father who’s own supposed mental breakdown changes him into a totally different person. The part that Paxton is in is complicated, having the duty to portray a serial killer who the audience is supposed to understand and feel for in a way. He is still totally off the walls and makes for a frightening human being. Even the two kids, Matt O’Leary and Jeremy Sumpter, do commendable work, which I really wasn’t expecting.

All’s going well so far. Then… Oh, then… A third act comes along that ruins the movie in a way that an ending has never done to me before. I don’t want to spoil anything, although it’s really difficult not to. There’s so much I want to say about this god awful joke of an ending. To summarize, let’s just say that it takes everything that was really cool, scary, and interesting and completely throws it all out the window for some bullshit twist. Ever since The Sixth Sense, it seems almost obligatory that psychological thrillers of this kind have some kind of twist to them. Well, the difference between The Sixth Sense and Frailty is that the twist of Shymalan’s masterpiece is tricky and thought provoking instead of stupid, like what we see in Frailty.

I don’t want to say that Frailty is a bad movie solely because of the ending, because that wouldn’t be fair. In all honesty, Frailty is an above average psychological thriller that people seem to have forgotten. It deserves the praise that it’s gotten from people like Sam Raimi and Stephen King, but I can’t help but be really bothered that someone thought the ending was a good way to wrap up the story. I don’t want to dissuade anybody from seeing Frailty because it really is a good experience, just be ready when the ending completely throws you off due to the writer’s need to try to make the movie more thought provoking than it really needed to be.

A Life Less Ordinary – Review

18 Apr

I’ve talked all about Danny Boyle before and how I think he is one of the best directors working in the industry today. He always injects a frenetic style into his movies that moves the plot at a sometimes break neck speed, but also just reminds us that we’re watching a movie. Dealing many times with characters who are troubled and occasionally violent, the thought of Danny Boyle making a romantic comedy sounds intriguing. Teaming up again with writer John Hodge and producer Andrew MacDonald, Boyle and his crew have created a darkly comedic and wonderfully screwball romantic comedy with A Life Less Ordinary.

nLsYA2eXdiIHJyBeaCgDycjyELI

Robert Lewis (Ewan McGregor) is a janitor with bigger dreams of writing a best selling “trash novel” that people are going to find in airports and take along for their trip whose life seems to start spiraling when he gets fired by Mr. Naville (Ian Holm). Celine Naville (Cameron Diaz), Naville’s daughter, is a spoiled rich brat who is bored with her posh life. On a more supernatural level, O’Reilley (Holly Hunter) and Jackson (Delroy Lindo) are two angels who specialize in love and is charged with making Robert and Celine fall in love. Things seem to take a turn for the worse when Robert ends up kidnapping Celine, who is actually just as interested in the ransom money and the entire adventure. As Robert and Celine keep on the run, O’Reilley and Jackson are always following close behind, pulling the strings and trying to bring the two closer together and hopefully fall in love.

I can be very hard on romantic comedies because I feel like most of them follow the same cliches and some of them are exactly the same movie with slightly different characters. If I’m going to enjoy a romantic comedy, it has to be different but also have a romance in it that feels real and heart warming. A Life Less Ordinary is very different with its supernatural and criminal elements, but it also has a romance that I buy and enjoy watching. Even though this movie is a step ahead of most romantic comedies that come out, I can’t say that it is the strongest effort by Boyle and his gang of film makers, especially since this was the movie that followed up his masterpiece, Trainspotting.

movies_ewan_mcgregor_career_pictures_4

 

 

Another great thing about this movie that made it different from a lot of romantic comedies is that it was actually funny. I can’t tell you the amount of rom coms I’ve watched and saw the jokes coming a mile away, or just find it all obnoxious as a whole. In A Life Less Ordinary, most of the jokes work because they’re presented unexpectedly in the dialogue or they’re situational in the most absurd of ways. The fact that there are angels in this movie and a heaven that looks like it is a whited out police station is absurd enough. Another really funny part about this movie is that Robert kidnaps Celine, but throughout the entire kidnapping, Celine is obviously in charge. This turn of events that makes Celine have the upper hand gives the movie a lot of opportunities for some ridiculous screwball comedy.

As much as I enjoy this movie, there is something about it that brings it down a few notches. The way the movie is set up makes it feel like a bunch of scenes, which it is but that’s never how a movie should feel. In my review for Chinatown, I say how everything in the story flows so well that I hardly even picked up on the fact that I was already deep into the plot. In A Life Less Ordinary, everything seemed like it was put into blocks. Scenes never really flowed into each other. They simply just changed. One part towards the end especially not only slows the movie down, but feels completely out of place and really pulled me totally out of the movie.

A Life Less Ordinary is not only a rom com done the Danny Boyle way, but also the right way. There’s nothing in this movie that is earth shattering or completely changes the way that I look at film in general. What it did was provide me with some light hearted (and a little dark at times) fun which was a good way to spend the afternoon. This film comes nowhere near to Danny Boyle’s best, but it is a good movie that will have you laughing at the absurdity that it has to offer.

Stoker – Review

15 Apr

I feel confidently in saying that when we were all children, we’ve heard a fairy tale in one shape or form. I’m also pretty confident in saying that we’ve probably heard many. For me, it was strange to learn that the fairy tales that I loved growing up were pretty much watered down versions of the original story. This leads me to my review of Stoker. To me, this film is a fairy tale that isn’t watered down, but presented exactly how it should be. Add in a little bit of flair that would please Alfred Hitchcock and that’s exactly what Stoker turns out to be: a twisted fairy tale of repressed psychological issues and a family that can only be described as deeply disturbed.

stoker-poster-us

India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska) is a teenage girl who was born with senses that are far beyond normal and a personality that leaves her distanced from everyone else except her father. When her father dies on her 18th birthday, India’s mother Evelyn (Nicole Kidman) is left alone and is completely unstable. Her loneliness is soon appeased with the arrival of India’s mysterious Uncle Charlie (Matthew Goode) who has apparently been travelling around Europe and most of the world since India was born. As Evelyn becomes more and more infatuated with Charlie, India begins to look at him with an increasing amount of disdain and suspicion, especially when people around the house and neighborhood begin to go missing. As the mystery thickens, even India, herself, can not help but become increasingly drawn to Charlie which may lead to India releasing what’s been bottling up inside her for eighteen years.

The collaboration that made Stoker possible is as strange as the plot is. The screenplay was written by Wentworth Miller, who was made famous by being the lead role in the television show Prison Break. In the director’s chair is the Korean film maker Park Chan-wook, known for directing films like Oldboy and Thirst. Composing the music is one of my favorite film composers Clint Mansell, known for his exceptional score to Requiem for a Dream. Finally, producing this film is Ridley Scott and Tony Scott, which is the last movie he ever produced before his death. When I was watching the credits for this film, I really couldn’t believe how strange of a combination this all was, but it was an excellent combination nonetheless.

Park-Chan-wooks-Stoker-2013

While everyone involved makes Stoker what it is, there’s no denying that some of the people involved had more to do with how good the movie turned out than others did. What I’m trying to say is that although Miller’s screenplay is essential to the film, it’s really Park Chan-wook’s impressive visuals that make the film more than an ode to Alfred Hitchcock’s Shadow of a Doubt. What is visually present is, at times, more interesting than the story itself. Park has created a modern day Victorian/Gothic style that is really interesting and works with Miller’s screenplay. As cool and disturbing as the story is, Miller’s dialogue just isn’t very good which means that the times where there were no dialogue had to be extra intriguing, and they were.

Along with Park Chan-wook, major credit is given to the cast for portraying their characters in the eeriest of ways. Mia Wasikowska is quiet and broods throughout the entire movie which really gives us a hint of what she’s really capable of. Nicole Kidman shows us an unbalanced widow in a not very obvious way which makes her character interesting. My personal favorite is Matthew Goode who keeps that shit eating grin on his face the entire movie and makes the audience really love just how smug and secretive he really is. Another star of Stoker is actually someone related to the post-production phase. This person is Nicolas De Troth, the editor of the movie. The editing is so precise and seems so meticulous that it really makes this film one of a kind when it comes to the post-production. The sound design is also spectacular, really keeping with the idea that India’s senses are heightened. Even the smallest sound is heard perfectly, which made me feel like I could really hear what she was hearing. From the sound to the visual cues and cuts, Stoker was just a marvel to watch even though the Academy would go nowhere near something as disturbing as this movie is.

Stoker is definitely one of the best movies to come out in 2013, and it’s really a shame that it wasn’t recognized at all by the Academy. But, we all know that the Academy Awards are all very P.C. and Stoker is pretty much the opposite of P.C. That’s what I love it though. That and just how well made it is. I had no doubt in my mind that it was going to be a darkly beautiful film, but actually seeing it made me realize just how much detail was put into constructing this modern day Hitchcockian fairy tale. That description should be enough to make anyone curious enough to check this movie out.

Kalifornia – Review

11 Apr

There are times when I’m browsing the bargain bins that are filled with a mountain of some of the most random, and often obscure movies that I could possibly find and I get surprised. One of these surprises was when I found a film from 1993 that I’ve never heard of called Kalifornia. The packaging seemed interesting and it starred David Duchovney before he became known for his role in The X-Files and a young Brad Pitt before his career even took off. I really know nothing about this movie so getting it was a complete gamble, but sometimes it’s possible to find a small gem in a container filled with trash.

Kaliforniaposter

Brian Kessler (David Duchovney) and Carrie Laughlin (Michelle Forbes) are an artistic yuppie couple with dreams of moving to California, where they feel all of the jobs and inspiration will be, especially since Brian can’t get his new book on serial killers started. Unfortunately for the two artists, they don’t have the money to get to California, which makes Brian think he can find someone else trying to get to California to come with them and help them pay, while stopping at famous murder sites to get pictures and information for his book. Enter the lower class hillbilly couple Early Grayce (Brad Pitt) and his childish girlfriend Adele Corners (Juliette Lewis), who also have dreams of moving to California. While the relationship between the two couples is strained at best, but what Brian and Carrie don’t know can hurt them. A subject for Brian’s book may be closer than he thinks with Early being an ex-con who’s breaking parole, but who is also wanted for murdering multiple people.

I want to get the bad out of the way, because this movie really did have a positive effect on me. First of all, Duchovney’s performance is rather flat, and I feel like part of that is because the character is pretty flat. His voice over is pretty bad as well, but that’s mostly due to his monotone voice which works well for Fox Mulder on The X-Files, but not so much for his character here. Another problem I had here is that the writing is pretty baffling at points, which means that things happen and I really have a hard time buying some of the things that happened in this movie.  Along with this is that there is really a lot of material to work with in terms of suspense and conflict, but it isn’t really used to its full potential.

tumblr_mnq0hsUPgC1sptweqo1_500

While Duchovney’s performance and some of the writing may be questionable, these things don’t ruin the movie at all. In fact, I thought this movie was surprisingly entertaining. I like looking at this movie like a road trip film with a sadistic twist. Looking at it only as a horror/thriller may the wrong way to go. Being a road move/horror film is a cool and interesting combination. Another surprising thing was the questions and points that the movie brought up, topics that I wasn’t expecting to be explored. One is the difference of two cultures, one being the yuppie/art culture and the other being the lower class/hillbilly culture. Both of the couples are hammed up and portrayed as stereotypes, but it works well for the sake of a plot device and a possible discussion point. More interesting to me are the brief moments of dialogue and questions on the psychology of serial killers, and if they should be locked up or killed, or if they should be put in a mental institution and treated. Kalifornia doesn’t answer these questions, but allows the viewer to have their own opinions on the topic.

There’s nothing entirely special about the directing by Dominic Sena, who started with music videos (and that occasionally shows), but there are a few moments that were pretty cool. What makes this movie seeing more than anything else are the performance by Brad Pitt and Juliette Lewis. Pitt seems really deep in his role, and there’s a story where he chipped his tooth opening up a beer while in character and decided to keep the tooth chipped because it worked well for his character. He does seem a bit over the top at times, but he keeps that level throughout the entire movie and I believe that he became Early Grayce. As great as Pitt is, the real scene stealer is Juliette Lewis. While I have always considered her a good actor, her performance in Kalifornia can easily be called great. Her character is played to perfection and is the deepest and most tragic aspect of the entire movie. She is fantastic and plays childish innocence very well, and her and Pitt’s chemistry are note perfect.

Kalifornia was a great find and having spent five whole dollars on it, I definitely feel like I got more than I payed for. This movie is by no means a classic, nor is it going to be remembered and talked about for the years to come. However, as far movies go, this is a really fun movie that is actually a lot better than I thought it was going to be. The whole idea is great, but unfortunately can’t achieve that greatness because the elements aren’t used to their full potential. If anything, you should see this movie for Brad Pitt and Juliette Lewis alone, but as a whole I can still recommend this movie. It isn’t anything special, but it works just fine.

 

Chinatown – Review

7 Apr

Throughout the 1930s and the 1940s, film noir was a major genre/style in Hollywood. It was so influential that even after the height of its time, there were still film makers who were eager to implement its style and themes into their own films. Probably the most iconic neo-noir film to ever be made is Roman Polanski’s Chinatown, released in 1974. With hard lighting, a twist on the femme fatale, and an anti-hero that would stand the tests of time, Chinatown wasn’t just an experiment to see if the genre could hold up thirty years after its peak, but it was also a brilliant film that is remembered today as a classic.

37852_chinatown_poster

J.J. Gittes (Jack Nocholson) is a private investigator hired to figure out if Hollis Mulwray (Darrell Zwerling) is cheating on his wife. After the news story and Gittes’ photographs end up on the front page of the newspaper, he sets out to uncover why this has garnered such media attention, but soon learns that Hollis has been found dead in a reservoir, presumably having drowned. The real Mrs. Mulwray (Faye Dunaway) soon approaches Gittes with the intent to press charges after the story leaked into the newspaper, but soon decides to help him with his own personal investigation into the death of Hollis Mulwray. What Gittes uncovers, however, could never have been expected with a web of deceit and corruption that has links to L.A’s water supply, familial abuse, and thousands of acres of land that are worth millions.

It’s very easy to watch Chinatown and picture it as a black and white noir film from the 1940s, but the fact remains that it is from 1974 and there are elements from it that would never fly 30 years earlier from when it was made. Much like how Sam Peckinpah’s film The Wild Bunch could be considered an anti-Western, Chinatown could be considered an anti-noir. That’s not just because there are things in the story that never would have been allowed with the code that was established in the early days of Hollywood, but also because there are certain plot points that would have been very unconventional for the times to the point that audiences would have been quite disturbed. Instead of calling it an “anti-noir” it would be more appropriate to call it a “revisionist noir.” Revisionist movies were actually very popular in the late 1960s and early 1970s because the film makers took genre conventions, flipped them upside down, and made their own films that would redefine Hollywood in the years to come.

Chinatown_091Pyxurz[1]

 

It may seem pretty obvious to say that the performances in this movie are all fantastic. Looking at the credits of talent that are in this film, it should really go without saying with Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway, and John Huston. Even though the acting is all top notch, Chinatown is really a victory for the screenwriter, Robert Towne. It’s not everyday that I watch a movie and just get completely blown away by how masterful the screenplay is written. Throughout the entire run time of this movie, I was being twisted, turned, dragged, and mislead with Gittes always one step ahead of me. Even when the plot was starting to thicken, it felt like a seamless transition and I never felt like I was being jolted out of place.

After saying how excellent the screenplay is, I still need to touch on Roman Polanski’s expert direction. Recently I’ve reviewed Rosemary’s Baby and Repulsion, but Chinatown really takes it to a whole other level. One thing that really stuck out to me was the use of long takes while shots of dialogue were being filmed. Instead of cutting up a scene, Polanski would let the camera run, catching the actors in these long bits of dialogue that really got to show just how good they really were. Meanwhile, cinematographer John A. Alonzo, who went on to be the cinematographer on Scarface, made sure that the lighting was exactly right and hearken back to the golden age of cinema where detectives were the only thing keeping big cities safe from sadistic murderers.

Chinatown is one of those movies straight out of film history that will exceed your expectations. It’s easy to call a movie a classic, but it’s not quite as simple to explain why it is a classic. This film is a classic because it takes from the old and makes it feel completely new, while exploring themes of big business and corruption that were way ahead of its time. Add in some excellent performances, direction, and writing and you got yourself a movie that will never be forgotten. If you haven’t gotten the chance to see Chinatown, make sure you see it, maybe even more than once.