________________________________________
____________________________________________
Death at a Funeral
2007
Directed by Frank Oz
Directed by Frank Oz
Frank Oz doesn't exactly have a hip cult following as a director. But I guess there's no real easy way to bring together fans of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, Yoda, and The Muppets Take Manhattan. So if you're already in such a situation as a tough box office draw, it's hard not to see it as just a little masochistic to make your next movie a British comedy about death.
It's obvious from the title where and how we'll be spending our time in this film. The man in the coffin was the patriarch of a family full of enough sons and daughters and relatives and friends to fill up an hour and a half. Daniel is the eldest son responsible for the funeral arrangements, and therefore, the one under the most stress. Robert is his successful novelist brother transplanted from his New York party life back to England for the funeral. While everyone in the family naturally expected Robert to deliver the eulogy because of his literary talents, nervous Daniel is the one given the honor instead. This causes a conflict that makes up the meat of the first half of movie.
Really, who cares? Oz has proven that he knows how to make great comedy, but NO director could have made that main plotline that I just described interesting. At least not in the context of black comedy. But that's just one of the major conflicts between characters that doesn't work in any developed way. There are others. For that reason, it's safe to say this is far from one of Oz's better films. The more I think about it, it's really sort of like a wealthy-white British version of a black 'hood' comedy. All the same elements are there. Overblown stereotypical characters, kiddie-pool depth dialogue, forgettable storylines, and when all else fails, have someone make a funny face or say something inappropriate in front of a priest. Or a preacher if you're LL Cool J. Zany antics!!!
Don't get me wrong though, there are laughs in this flick. Good ones, and more than a couple. But the actual writing of the jokes will have nothing to do with that. It's all in the talent and timing of the actors at work and their performances, or more specifically, two of the performances. The great Peter Dinklage (The Station Agent, Elf) has by far the most interesting sidelined story as the dead father's secret gay midget lover in search of a pay-off, with the threat of airing out the father's dirty laundry at his own funeral. That's just good stuff.
The other great comedic performance of the film is by Alan Tudyk, who we also saw this year in 3:10 to Yuma, where he played the veterinarian Doc Potter. Not the best role of that particular film, but maybe the best of this one. Most of his time on screen is spent tripping balls from an accidental dose of mixed hallucinogens (which he thought were Valium pills). Has it been done a million times before in other movies?? Sure. But this one should go down in film history as one of the more entertaining, and that's no small compliment. I really enjoyed the whole sequence. When it's all said and done though, it still simply remains in the realm of a running side-gag and nothing more.
Tudyk (middle)By the time the film gets to it's obligatory impassioned ending speech that's supposed to bring the family down from chaos, we really don't care about the characters enough to find it profound or conclusive. If only Oz and the screenwriters would have put as much effort into the heart of the film as they did into the ass, it could have really came to life.
Wait for this one to come out on DVD. You'll definitely laugh, but not nearly enough times to make you feel better about ticket prices.
____________________________________________
____________________________________________Ace in the Hole
1951
Directed by Billy Wilder
Directed by Billy Wilder
50 years before Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta attacked the lack of ethics in news journalism in Mad City, the great director Billy Wilder and Kirk Douglas were already delivering knockout blows with Ace in the Hole. And although it was never officially presented as such (that I know of), Mad City is as close to a remake of the latter as any film has gotten in those 50 years.
Kirk Douglas is Charles Tatum, a disgraced loud-mouth newspaper reporter from New York City who has been fired from 11 different papers for everything from wild drunken behavoir to sleeping with the boss's wife. He wanders into a small daily newspaper building in Albequerque, New Mexico, offering his services for a fraction of what he used to make in the big cities. His plan is to wait. Wait for just one big story to fall into his lap so he can earn his spot back in the big leagues. His chance comes when him and a young journalism grad happen to be the first on the scene at a crisis situation in a small town in the middle of the desert. A man was trapped after the walls of the cave he was digging in collapsed on top of him. The man's father sees it as a tragedy, but Tatum sees it as the best thing that could've happened. He knows this could be the big story he needs, and he gets his wish when thousands of people start flowing in to see the rescue effort. It's the biggest story in the country. But for how long? How far is Tatum willing to go to keep his story on the front page?
Without a doubt one of Wilder's best films, Ace in the Hole has incredible social commentary for it's time, not to mention fantastically sharp and layered dialogue. Check it out if you can find it.
The Illusionist
2006
Directed by Neil Burger
Directed by Neil Burger
The Deep Impact of *magixploitation movies last year, The Illusionist basically played second stage to Christopher Nolan's The Prestige, and in many ways rightfully so. The latter was much more epic, action-packed, and memorable. But The Illusionist was by no means a bad movie just because it was the lesser of the two. I loved it, and I actually just watched it again last night.
One of the biggest reoccuring problems critics claimed to have with the film was that the magic tricks were "impossible" or "too unbelievable", and that this somehow took away from the film. And true enough, the illusions that Edward Norton's character pulls off are well outside the realm of realism. But that's ultimately a huge part of what makes the film work, and what sets it more in the tradition of great fantasies than The Prestige, which was more in the tradition of great thrillers. In other words, you will most definitely be asked to suspend your disbelief here, but if you can do that for movies where alien robots turn into fucking deisel trucks, I'm pretty sure you can do it for a nuanced period piece.
At this point it goes without saying that Edward Norton and Paul Giamatti are two of the greatest American actors working today, so you won't be shocked at their pitch-perfect performances. But besides those two, the director took a big chance with some of the other choices for the main players. To be more specific, Jessica Beal and Rufus Sewell. Niether of them have ever shown me anything special, mostly working in summer blockbuster throwaways like Stealth and A Knight's Tale, respectively. But they both do great jobs in this movie, especially Sewell who plays a sociopathic prince, as if there's any other kind. You really hate him, but more importantly, you really don't know whether he will get his in the end or not (haha!........."get his in the end"), which has been a great thing for any movie to accomplish as long as movies have been made.
Don't get it twisted though, I'm not reviewing this one over The Prestige because I think it's the better film. After seeing the Prestige twice, it's honestly one of my favorite movies of the last 5 years. I just think that in the jumble last year, The Illusionist got lost partly because of critics unnecessarily comparing the two, and partly because it was just a damn jumble last year, period. If you haven't seen this one, I suggest you go grab it.
*you like that one? COPYRIGHTED BITCH!!
1 comment:
beautiful headers, beautiful reviews! it all rocks!
Post a Comment