#105 of 2010: Casino

obvious compare/contrast-type statements: more Robert Deniro, a more convoluted relationship storyline, and a more graphic whacking of Joe Pesci's character (Nicky in this case) than we saw in Goodfellas.

now for what really sticks with me about this movie.

a subtle but important triumph of Casino is how effectively it utilizes voiceover. the entire film is narrated by the two main characters alternately, but there are two places where a disembodied voice plays an especially captivating/surprising role in the transpiration of a scene.

the first of these occurs around the 43:00 mark. it's the night of Ace and Ginger's wedding, and as she sits in the hallway outside of the reception, on the telephone with Lester (her slimy, unshakable emotional baggage personified), we see Ace come through the door to find her [Lester's voice: "this is great for us"]. cut to a reverse shot of what Ace sees: his new wife, the hitherto strong, charming, smart hustler with whom he has basically cut a deal in the hopes that they can have what they need from each other, now slouched, crying, clinging to a payphone outside her own wedding reception. just as the shot reverses to show us Ace's reaction to all this, Lester's voice continues, "I'm looking at you right now. I'm seeing you for the very first time, right this minute." Lester's creepy/nostalgic/manipulative remembrances of the Ginger he met when she was just 14 occur on the soundtrack simultaneously with Ace's first unavoidable glimpse into her past, his first real encounter with the side of Ginger that is still as malleable and scared and frail as if she were fresh on the street. we were already pretty sure that his willful ignorance and exaggerated sense of control were going to cause him trouble. now he's starting to see it that way, too.

the second striking voiceover comes at about 2:47:30, ten minutes shy of the credits. Nicky has gotten a big head, messed around, fouled up. and though Ace's narration clues us in on what's about to happen out in the cornfield, Nicky's voice reassures us that he organized this meeting, that he's gonna straighten things out, that he wants to make sure his "brother don't get fucked around. what's right is right. they don't give a fuck abou- AGGH!". the voiceover is cut short by a baseball bat to the back; the flashback catches up with the narration. it's a bit of a brainmess, sort of a paradox, but it is also effective. even the source of approximately half of the story can wind up beaten and buried still breathing alongside his brother in a cornfield. even a "made" narrator isn't safe.

and this line about Piscano: "this guy, basically, sunk the whole world". it's a good line.

Casino is tragic in the way that you see coming right from the beginning, but it makes sure to take you along for the ride. nifty camera manipulations. pretty splendid performances. worth recommending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_(film)

#103 of 2010: Multiplicity

I'm not kidding. Jmilz told me she wanted a review on the little cinematic gem that is "Multiplicity", and I aim to please with this blog. Obviously.

First observation: Micheal Keaton is not a "good actor". He falls somewhere between Kevin Costner and Nicolas Cage, almost as if he is, himself, the outcome of some hollywood genetic accident where the test tube "Cage's spaziness and gravel-whisper voice" got dumped into "Costner's bland looks and latent pattern baldness" and some kind of full grown baby happened, complete with plaid workshirt. Second observation: Micheal Keaton is impossibly hilarious in th(i/e)s(e) role(s).

The clones are easy, middle-school skit character sketches: Tough Guy, Effeminate Man, and The Idiot. But that sort of works here: in a movie about how what seems like a simple solution (and is treated in passing conversational hyperbole as one, which was undoubtedly the inspiration for this story in the first place) is actually a complex mix of drawbacks and advantages, it makes sense to take the three extremes of what men are and turn them into simple characters who interact externally in representations of the complex ways we all deal with our own facets, our own "versions" of ourselves. Ok, maybe that's a bit of a stretch, considering how much time is frittered away on the "I'm The Only One Who Sleeps With My Wife" rule and the instances of its being "bent" or "broken". That's not exactly a literal illustration of deep, metaphorical, existential quandaries (or. . .?).

Andie McDowell is delicate and lovely in a "normalish southern person with a perm" kind of way. It's a little sad that a movie that was made in 1996 treats the "working mom" thing as a MAJOR plot thickener, but I guess there are still, to this day, women dealing with that shit. As funny as Michael Keaton's character might be, he's also a totally self-involved asswipe. And maybe it's a bit problematic that what seems to be a marriage-breaking disconnect (in two ways: 1] to her, he appears to be erratic, unstable, and sometimes completely unresponsive to her based on which clone is standing in, and 2] even WORSE than the problems she perceives, he's actually OFF SAILING while instructing the stand-ins not to take any of the privileges of emotional intimacy even if they are the ones actually experiencing it and putting in the effort to achieve it, because he certainly isn't) is absolved with the expensive and time-consuming remodel of the kitchen. Well and I guess he promises to be a better husband, or something. Ok, sure.

I'm gonna slap a "recommended" on this, you know, why not. Plus Laszlo Kovacs as DoP?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplicity_(film)

#102 of 2010: Goodfellas

There were some great slo-mos, a gripping freeze frame at the instant of a firing gun's flare, and that CLASSIC zoom in/dolly out in the cafe. I wasn't so thrilled about Karen's freaking out voice, and I definitely thought that allowing her to narrate just for that little bit was detrimental to the effectiveness of the narration device as a whole. costuming was really notable, especially the outfit Henry wears as he beats the shit out of Karen's neighbor. There's more to say, clearly, but I'm making an effort to catch back up on these reviews. Recommend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodfellas

#95 of 2010: La Femme Nikita

see "B13" review regarding the characters and plots of Besson. Nikita was pretty dynamic, but still fit in to that description. there was a strangely relatable undercurrent throughout the whole thing relating to the helplessness of people trying to occupy their own lives despite the hellish trap of constant obligation. the love is jumped to in the story, but sincere feeling. the violence is not especially graphic, but in context it is disturbing and stripped of logic or explanation (as it probably should always be depicted). overall, she's not all laid out as a natural bad ass or a victim overcoming her trauma, she's pretty emotional and kind of quiet, and she's not a "nice girl". that's a protagonist that we don't often get to see in action films. also i was sad when victor died purely because of leon. recommend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_(film)

#76 of 2010: The Celebration

"The Celebration" has been languishing in my DVD queue for months, hovering near the top but always being postponed in favor of a more recent recommendation. its turn finally came, and i was thoroughly blown away by it. i found out as the opening credits played that the film was the first movie made according to Dogme 95 requirements, and i was impressed with how polished and cohesive (in comparison to my only other experience with Dogme filmmaking, Korine's "Julien Donkey Boy") the whole thing turned out to be. i've said it before and i'll say it again: few things fill me with more admiration than financially resourceful executions of engaging visual storytelling. solid creativity can function on any budget, and this film exemplifies how much you can do with a bit of precise editing, some murky lighting, fantastic acting, and impeccable direction. the dream/drunk sequence towards the end was probably the most moving, most spot-on depiction of semi-consciousness that i have ever seen. also, while the plot revolves around tragic victimization, blatant/uncomfortable confrontation, and the struggle towards recovery within a family, it never feels like the "movie version" of something that happens in real life; it feels like the "real life version" (this from the perspective of someone who's never experienced anything like the film's premise first or second or even third hand). as a viewer, you're included as a guest at the table, you're a bystander trying to figure out how or if- once a horrendous act can no longer be ignored or denied- it might be possible to keep on existing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Celebration

#72 of 2010: Following

in several ways, Christopher Nolan's "Following" reminded me of Robert Rodriguez's "El Mariachi", another low-budget, home-grown, internationally distributed debut that was made in the 90's. the films were both written, shot, and edited largely by their directors, and both use less-than-entirely-convincing actors and public or borrowed-from-friends locations to tell truly compelling stories. "Following" is significantly more understated than "El Mariachi" in it's brand of suspense and it's visual composition as a whole (we're talking the difference between shoot-outs because of coincidences and meticulously plotted sneaking around, the difference between a black-and-white, grey-skied London and south-of-the border sun-drenched vibrance), but they are both commendable in their resourcefulness and in their effectiveness, and definitely demonstrate the potential (which is now being realized) of these directors. Even though "Following" isn't so impressive standing as a piece of art in a vacuum, disconnected from the history of it's maker and production, it's fast-paced (short too, only 70 minutes!) and intriguing and non-linear enough to be worth recommending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Following

#62 of 2010: Bram Stoker's Dracula

i have to start by calling out the use of the author's name for any publicity of this movie. it would have been more appropriate to call it "Coppola's Shitty Dracula". i'll follow that with what i saw as the movie's strengths: sweet costuming for the Vlad preface; decent acting (however wasted on the film as a whole) by Anthony Hopkins, Gary Oldman (guaranteed by the screen actors guild to astound as an over-the-top villian while introducing a faint glimmer of humanity), and [surprise!] Tom Waits; and financially conservative effects (including camera positioning, aesthetically pleasing fades, and interesting editing), which i always appreciate for their resourcefulness and creativity. now for the weaknesses. in my perfect imaginary world, any time that someone tries to turn a piece of innovative and culturally important literature into a porn that is not even a good porn, they should have to apologize to everyone who watches it all the way through. i won't bother waiting for that, since this is not my world and Francis Ford Coppola's iteration of this horror story already achieved blockbuster status. besides the performances mentioned, the rest were either totally bland or (accidentally, i hope, for the sake of any respect i might in the future have for this director) unentertainingly comical. if you feel you must watch this, try to focus on the mystery of dracula's shapeshifting and centuries-long history. the movie got this right while it let all of the other great suspense-building plot-points from the novel fall apart. ff when Winona and Keanu are on screen together to avoid going into a bored coma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula_(1992_film)

#57 of 2010: days of being wild

i can see how these premises and characters grew into Wong Kar-Wai's later movies (it's "sequels", "in the mood for love" and "2046", but also the chronologically-nearer "chungking express"). the whole film has a "learning" feel- in the content, people learn about how other people work, learn to move on, learn secrets, travel and learn new trades; through the visuals, the viewer must learn to translate darkness and the small, fragmented plains of faces or furniture or clothes that catch the light; after seeing the later films in the sequence, it is clear that the director is learning how to build and where to block characters, when they should enter and exit for greatest raw effect (rather than greatest/clearest contribution to narrative), and besides that, he is working for the first time with Christopher Doyle, no doubt entering into a relationship in which both parties learned from each other. if you haven't seen any Wong Kar-Wai, maybe start here and watch the "trilogy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_being_wild

#55 of 2010: Everyone Says I Love You

The best chemistry was between Goldie and Woody, for sure. Tim Roth played his part magnificently as well. I haven't actually seen that many Woody Allen movies (besides this, "Vicki Christina Barcelona" and "What's Up Tiger Lily"), but I get the feeling that they all have a similar air of cinematic transparency, that is, that they don't bother to ask for a suspension of disbelief, especially where dialogue is concerned. I prefer movies that are based on more absorptive writing, even when the acting doesn't hold up. personal preference. however, I do appreciate how Allen builds his heroines: they may all be beautiful (but so are the men, except for him, and who but beautiful people do we expect to populate movies that never claim realism), but they are also smart, independently thoughtful, fallible, and (perhaps most importantly) are distinguishable from each other in their priorities and views on love and life. the musical element here was fairly gimmicky, but the choreography was pretty wonderful to watch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyone_Says_I_Love_You