Marwencol was AMAZING! I will blog about it and the other films of the weekend Monday.

At the Indianapolis Museum of Art for a showing of Marwencol.

Movie #54 House of Games

This is an earmuffs edition of my reviews. I thought that would be fitting considering I am reviewing David Fucking Mamet's first film as a director; House of Games. For those of you that don't know who Mamet is, he is largely known as a playwright.  He has however ventured into films as both a screen writer and director. His 1992 film Glenngary Glenn Ross is one of my all time favorite movies.

Mamet is part of a book detailing different writing and directing styles. He is all about the words. To him actors are props. I have read that Mamet once told a very prominent actor that was trained in the method style of acting to "Stand up straight and read your fucking lines. No one can understand your mumbling. I wrote a brilliant script and you are fucking it all up."

House of Games is a con man movie. It stars Lindsay Crouse (Mamet's real world wife at the time of filming) as a therapist who gets involved with a group of con men by chance (or was it planed?). Mamet's theory of acting is quite evident here. Crouse displays all the grace and eloquence of a chainsaw. The first 20 minutes of this film is about as subtle as a baseball bat to the face. There are a few exchanges between therapist and patient that felt like I was watching bad high school actors.

If I had to describe this film in one word it would be "pulp". Mamet writes what Elmore Leonard is too embarrassed to write.  Accented with profanity the dialogue is course and raw.  If this film had been made 30 years earlier Barbara Stanwyck and Sterling Hayden would have played the lead roles.  It's not noir because even though it has some of the characteristics as a noir would, House of Games is too slick.  The conflict is muted due to the con that is being pulled.  The stakes are absent.

House of Games can not avoid the trappings of a typical con movie.  The viewers are instantly put on alert to watch for the con.  I fell for the first con hook line and sinker.  This really made me watch for the next one so that I wouldn't be the sucker.  To my disappointment I caught on the the second and much larger con right away.  I wondered how long it would take before they started to revel the con to the main character.  It was so obvious to me that I began to think that the con WAS going to be on me.  I thought that the film makers were making a conscious decision to make the con easily recognizable to lure its viewers in and then con them out at the ending.  I was wrong.  The big con can be spotted 100 miles away.

The end of this film is ludicrous.  The actions of the main character was never explained nor were we given any inclination that this person would be capable of performing such an act.  Sorry for the secrecy, but this is an earmuff edition of the blog, not a spoiler one.


The acting in this thing was terrible.  Crouse gave line reading after line reading.  Joe Mantegna was the same way.  He plays the lead con man.  I actually thought that the film might have been trying to make a statement about the current condition of acting in films.  Now I just think it was bad.  I love Mamet and if he ever read this I am sure he would send a couple of hard pipe hitting muther fuckers to rip my arms off, but I thought even the script was bad.  It was hackneyed and cliche.  Calling women "broads" and "babe", the peripheral banter in the poker game, the "tough-as-nails" chick lines seemed pigeonholed in and artificial. 


This might sound like a review of a bad movie, but some how it worked for me.  I had a good time watching it and I am glad I have seen it.  I don't think I will be going back to it anytime soon, but it is a decent flick overall.  I give House of Games a 3/5 star rating.  Check out the Trailer Park to see for yourself.

Rumor: George Lucas May Digitally Recreate Dead Actors You Love In A Movie You’ll Probably Hate The Playlist

Rumor: George Lucas May Digitally Recreate Dead Actors You Love In A Movie You’ll Probably Hate The Playlist

Movie #53 High Noon

A lot of critics like to wax poetic about the golden age of cinema.  The noirs, the musicals, the slap stick comedies, the war movies and the westerns were all born in this era.  You are kind of considered a traitor if you don't like these classics.  It is like an exclusive club consisting of those that have seen John Ford and Preston Sturges films.  And to see them is to love them.  Matter of fact, I would wager that many people claim to have seen all these old movies and really haven't.  Because they know that there is not many people that can call their bluff.  All the while they look down their noses at those that freely admit to not having seen "the classics".  I must admit that I have done it that as well.  "You haven't seen Red River!?!" Not stating that I only saw the film for the first time this year.

A side effect of this type of golden idol worship is that sometimes films that don't really deserve it get lumped into this pantheon of cinema.  Clearly there are movies like Citizen Kane and Casablanca, Sunset Boulevard and Sullivan's Travels deserve all their credit and more.  But there are films that weren't that revolutionary, nor did they contain legendary performances that get praised to the roof tops undeservedly.  High Noon is one of these films.

That is not to say that High Noon is a bad movie.  It certainly is not.  I was entertained throughout.  I just wasn't blown away.  The plot of High Noon is Garry Cooper plays a newly married (to an all time beauty, Grace Kelly) and recently retired sheriff when a gang of heels that he helped put away comes back to town to seek revenge.  He tries to round up a posse to help him out and the towns people turn their back on him.

The most interesting thing about this film is that it plays out in real time.  This really adds a sense of urgency to the characters actions.  Cooper only has 90 minutes to figure out how he is going to handle the situation.  The passage of time is handled in a little clunky manor by simply showing clocks all over town.  The film is sorting hitting you over the head with it as if it were shouting "SEE WHAT TIME IT IS?!? HE BETTER HURRY UP! THERE IS ONLY X AMOUNT OF MINUTES LEFT!"  I wish the director would have been a little more creative of subtle in his execution of this gimmick. 

The director in question is Fred Zinnemann.  Recognize the name?  I blogged about his 1973 film Day of the Jackal last week.  Here he is solid with a few interesting setup's and shots.  But for the most part this is a color-by-numbers western.  Grace Kelly is solid as his Quaker bride, Loyd Bridges seems a little out of place in this movie as the sheriffs replacement.  There is a Hispanic former love interest sub plot with that character played by Katy Jurado.  I have never heard of her, but she was adequate.

That seems like the best way to sum up this film.  Adequate.  I think it has survived on it's star, director and story.  The film doesn't offer up much new in what was a solid genre for it's time.  There is one other note of interest.  The theme song was really bizarre.  It seemed totally out of place and like it was recorded in someones basement.  I will give High Noon a 3/5 stars and say that it is a good watch for a rainy or snowy Sunday evening.  Check out the Trailer Park to see for yourself.

Marwencol | OFFICIAL trailer US (2010) ComicCon SXSW Silverdocs IFF Boston

I am going to go see this on Thursday at the Indianapolis Art Museum. See you there?

Movie #52 T2

I haven't even made mention that I have eclipsed the half a century mark on my reviews.  52 movies in 96 days watched and reviewed.  I received High Noon in the mail today via Netflix.  I am looking forward to catching up with a western I have heard about most of my life.  I became even more excited when I realized that it was directed by the same man that directed Day of the Jackal.

But alas that is not the film that I am reviewing now.  I couldn't quite talk my kids into watching another western with gold ole dad.  So instead I got them hook on this tiny little 1991 merchant ivory picture called T2: Judgment Day.  How did I get them interested?  I told them it was by the same guy that directed Avatar.  See, that movie is good for something.

This film still plays.  Yes, the special effect aren't so special anymore.  But this was made in a time when James Cameron did rely entirely on CGI to tell an interesting story.  I can remember at the time watching T2 and being blown away.  Watching it now with a few thousand more films under my belt I was blown away for totally different reasons.

First off if you haven't seen T2 here is my brief synopsis:  A man sends a robot back from the future to protect his younger self from a different time traveling robot.  This man (John Connor) is the lead in a rebellion against the robots which have taken over the world.  In order to defeat the evil robot the boy and the terminator must free the kids mother from a mental institution so she may assist in the butt kicking. 

I am not going to comment on the acting other than to say that Edward Furlong as the young John Connor was solid and I would be amiss if I didn't mention the thespian talents of Arnold Schwarzenegger.  The action takes center stage here and it is a big freaking stage!  This film is known for about a dozen particular action sequences.  There is the semi-truck vs dirt bike vs overpass, there is the liquid nitrogen, there is the Skynet lab destruction, ect.

Watching it this time I noticed a lot of similarities between this film and the Star Wars trilogy.  The original trilogy.  I am sure there are a few shots that are staged as almost perfect comparisons.  Surely I can't be the only geek that noticed T2 and Empire had the same shots and themes?  I am going to Google the crap out of this after this blog.  If I find anything I will attack links or photos.

This movie really does have it all.  Cool CGI, great action, solid story (for a time traveling movie anyway) cool catch phrases, guns, nuclear apocalypse, you name it.  It does have a little harsher language that what might have been approiate for my tween daughters, but I am sure it is nothing that they haven't heard out on the play ground or in the locker rooms.  Blockbuster geeks complain that artsy critics can't enjoy a fun moive.  I think T2 proves them wrong.  This is a fun movie that is smart and well constructed.  Us artsy/fartsy types wish all summer blockbuster were made with this type of gusto.  I give T2 4/5 stars.

Checkout The Trailer Park to see for yourself.