Four Eyed Monsters
Advertisement

M.A.D. by Gahnzz - (Movie A Day)

  • M.A.D. #005 - Wall Street

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Wall Street  (1987)

    When I first saw Wall Street about 20 years ago, I loved Michael Douglas’ performance. For me, it represented a complete fusing of actor and role. Add to that, director Oliver Stone’s willingness to do long, uninterrupted takes (particularly during monologues) and what came through was some truly fine writing, compelling acting and it was all wonderfully shot.

    The triumvirate of Douglas, Charlie Sheen and Martin Sheen really drive this movie. And throwing in John C. MGinley in a supporting role, filling out the second tier with James Karen and Hal Holbrook you have some fantasically solid performances. Granted, once you hit up the female side of the equation, things kinda drop a bit. Through no fault of her own, Daryl Hannah is a bit mis-cast. Her demeanor and her delivery just don’t wash as a high-end interior designer and Sean Young is completely miscast as Douglas’ wife. She just comes off as an after-thought. Luckily, neither of these roles are truly important to the story being told - so their sub-par casting and performances don’t hamstring the movie very much.

    What amounts to basically a morality tale, Wall Street simply shines. Watching it again after two decades, I had a brief moment of the film being horribly dated - it being one of the hallmarks of 80’s cinema. However, the designers (costumer, set, etc.) nailed it, going with classical design options and staying away from overtly contemporary design choices. These add to an ultimately timeless and classical look.

    Wall Street survives as a clear time capsule of that time in America. A time that would eventually implode with the Stock Market Bubble of the mid-90’s, but it was still a time that epitomized the “Me” generation and did so shamelessly.

    Powered by ScribeFire.


    Originally posted on:john's blog

  • Posts a little out of order…

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    I’ve moved my posting from Spout.com over to here and I’ll just import them over there directly.  So the order is a little wonky right now, but it’ll be straight from here on out. Also, I know I owe a couple more reviews, but I’ve been busy with my show.  Should get a good 2-3 up [...]
    Originally posted on:john's blog

  • M.A.D. #004 - Wonder Boys

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Basic Instinct  (1992)

    Wall Street  (1987)

    Wonder Boys  (2000)

    For me, the most iconic Michael Douglas role was easily Oliver Stone’s Wall Street. He distilled the 80’s down to an instantly unlikable but extremely charming mogul that cemented him the minds of many. He had performed numerous roles before of course, but his performance as Gordon Gekko really crystallized for tons of viewers.

    I’ve always liked Michael Douglas’ performances, but while he’s widely considered a marquee name, he doesn’t have the draw and I suspect that it’s because of the film roles he chooses. From the philandering husband in Basic Instinct to his performance as Gekko, he normally chooses unlikable roles - a very brave practice for an actor.

    So when I saw Wonder Boys I was fully expecting to not like Michael Douglas’ character, but I was wrong. True, he (again) plays a philanderer, he drinks heavily, he is a chain-pot smoker, he’s fairly self-indulgent - but I can’t help myself. I loved that character, and for me - his performance as Grady Tripp almost outweighs his work as Gekko.

    The film centers on Tripp and his relationship with one of his pupils, played by Tobey Maguire. Over the course of a single evening, Tripp’s life (while caring for his student and keeping him out of trouble) gets turned upside down, and he makes some life altering realizations.

    I also wasn’t expecting a film with quite so much rumination from Curtis Hanson, the director. Again, someone whose work I have enjoyed, but not on this level. Downey Jr. and McDormand round out the cast with their stellar turns. All of the actors play to their strengths, but fill their roles with such quality work that it’s remarkable.

    And while she doesn’t exactly shine, Katie Holmes doesn’t really mis-step. She’s just out of her depth with these performances, and she kinda gets drowned out. There is a performer in there somewhere, she just needs a director who’ll make her WORK and get rid of her habits and patterns that plague all of her performances.

    On a strict realistic level, the film is fairly remarkable. One of those “how many bad things can happen to a single person in a single 24-hour period” but - meh. You can’t really blame the film for that… that is a problem that has plagued drama from eons. It’s a very enjoyable film filled with some wonderful performances, strong writing, and focused yet loose direction.

     

    Powered by ScribeFire.


    Originally posted on:john's blog

  • M.A.D. #003 - The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    I still remember hearing about the stage version as it opened in London to rave reviews - especially for it's star, Michael Crawford and how any eventual movie version would fail without his inclusion.   Fast forward 20 years, and Gerard Butler proves them wrong.

    Don't get me wrong, Schumaker's take on The Phantom of the Opera is not perfect.  Though it's fault cannot be found in any of its performers.  From Butler and Emily Rossum, through Patrick Wilson, and even to Minnie Driver - all the actors do quality work.  Wilson is unfortunately staged with the under-written and annoying Raoul - though that is more the fault of the writers than any shortcoming on his part.

    The movie follows the stage version pretty closely, even mirroring some of the most iconic scenes almost identically.  And therein lies one of the problems with this version.  Schumaker had the freedom of film, yet the camera often times seems bolted down in order to preserve a concept from the theatrical telling.   It's a shame, but those faults are mostly in the first 1/3 of the film.

    The largest problem - again, partly Schumaker and partly his screenwriters, was to remove some of the singing and replace it with verbatim speech, speaking the lines of a song instead of singing.  Directorially I can understand the reasoning, but the dialogue rings false and ultimately sounds flat.  It either needs to be genuine dialogue and it needs to be sung.  Probably a discussion about having too much "opera" in the movie caused the decision to be made - but it's called Phantom of the OPERA... any audience members bothered by excessive singing would never have sat down in the first place.

    All in all - a capable telling of the stage version.  A little short-handed given the possibilities of a true film version... but capable nonetheless.  Schumaker didn't lay an egg on this one... but he also didn't climb very high. 


  • M.A.D. #002 - Perfume: The Story of a Murderer

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Something I would not have thought possible was achieved in this film.  Tykwer (the director) somehow managed to relay the genuine sense of smell visually.

    Perfume: The Story of a Murderer is one of the most imaginative films ever made in the serial killer genre. 

    It follows the life of Jean-Baptiste, an orphan who has developed a near-perfect sense of smell, and is affected and motivated by smells on an almost sexual level.  I won't go too far into the plot as the sense of discovery is one of this film's strongest suits.

    The second major benefit of the film is Tykwer's direction.  The visual flair that he established in Run, Lola, Run is present here, and has matured and become more focused.  

    Acting throughout is fine indeed, with Hoffman and Rickman playing their roles to the hilt, with John Hurt's narration spot on.  Of particular note is Ben Whishaw as Jean-Baptiste.  He posses two of the most expressive eyes in years, and he uses them perfectly.  You don't hate him at the end of the film (at least I didn't) and feel almost a sense of pity and understanding.  That is an achievement for any actor portraying a serial murderer. 

     If you are expecting a gore fest - don't look here.  While the body count is fairly high (13?  14?) there is virtually no blood.  The murders are practically antiseptic for the most part - which makes them all the more disturbing.


  • M.A.D. #001 - Shattered Glass

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Shattered Glass  (2003)

    I was turned onto this film after hearing about it on a Podcast... ( I think it was Cinebanter but not completely sure.)  The main critique that intrigued me was that it was apparently good casting for Hayden Christensen.

     Well, that turned out to be very true.  Which, while good for the movie, is not necessarily a good thing for Christensen.

    Shattered Glass is the story of of Stephen Glass, a writer for the New Republic magazine in the late 1990's.  He enjoyed a meteoric rise at the magazine and had quite a healthy dose of respect from his colleagues until it all came crashing down after it was revealed that one of his stories had facts that were "suspect" after some cursory examination.

    Turns out that Glass had fabricated almost all of the facts of his stories during his entire career at the New Republic, which had long reaching impact on both himself and the magazine.

     The movie, which stars Christensen, Peter Sarsgaard, and Chloe Sevigny, covers that last few months of his career at the Republic, just as things started unravelling.  Wisely, the writers and the directors made the decision to start the film at this time, since the majority of the public (especially those who would see the film) were already very familiar with the events from the news.

    They chose instead to focus on the relationship that Glass had with his editor Chuck Lane (played by Sarsgaard).  Initially a little contentious, then friendly, then ultimately poisoned by the events of the plot, both actors do quite a good job at portraying the various levels.

    And, the movie really shines with Christensen's performance.  Where his whiny, petulant style seemed drastically out of place in the Star Wars prequels, it actually works here.  Instead of anger or resentment, as an audience member, you almost feel a perverse pity for this attractive, intelligent, talented man (boy, actually) who made some phenomenally bad choices.  It works in the context of the piece, and I wouldn't be surprised if the role wasn't written with him in mind.

    Where it falls down, unfortunately, is in the Extras on the DVD.  The real Glass is interviewed by 20/20 a few years later and that feature is included here.  The actual person comes off as far more genuine, far more earnest, and potentially far more duplicitous - not at all the person that Christensen portrayed.

    As a fictional character, he does a bang up job.  As a portrayal of the actual Stephen Glass?  Meh - not so hot.  Still worth a look... particularly for fans of Sarsgaard, Sevigny, or Steve Zahn (who plays the Wired reporter who starts the ball rolling that ultimately crushes Glass). 


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<July 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
293012345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
3456789

Dig through the archives

Categories
 


Advertisement