Henry Saw: Public Enemies

Well my most highly anticipated film of the summer is here...I really liked it...but it isn't perfect



Sometimes you know how you're gonna feel about a movie before you even see it. This is different than being excited for a film (or dreading one for that matter). I'm talking about when you look at all aspects of a movie going in and you're just certain how it's going to play for you. For instance: I knew I was going to hate Year One. I hate Jack Black, I dislike Michael Cera, all the trailers made it look painful...I just knew that it wasn't going to somehow win me over. Well Public Enemies is the opposite - I knew I was going to like this movie even if it had problems.

For starters, I find dramatized looks at the 1920's and 1930's Prohibition / Great Depression driven crime waves fascinating. Despite all having flaws I think Bonnie and Clyde (a definite classic), The Untouchables (a stylish but empty film), and Road To Perdition (an under-rated gem that isn't any fun) to all be really interesting and eminently watchable movies. The old Warner Brothers gangster films of the 1930's, like the original Scarface or Angels with Dirty Faces, are entertaining and provocative reflections of the era in they were made and hold up surprising well. Even a film like Dick Tracy, a movie I can't stand by the way, or the old Loony Toons that featured comical gangsters, are fun to watch to see how pop culture has digested and represented the principle heroes and villains of this tumultuous decade.

Second, I'm a pretty big believer in Michael Mann. I do think the man has made some clunkers (coughMIAMIVICEcough) and that the film that seems to widely be considered his best, Heat, is more than a little overrated. But you look at The Insider (brilliant film), Last of the Mohicans (one of my favorite films of all time) or Collateral and it's obvious that the man knows how to put together an exciting and intelligent film. Public Enemies seemed perfect for Mann as it combined the period film immersion and scope of Mohicans, the shootouts found in Heat and Miami Vice (by far the best parts of those films), and the interesting character conflict of Collateral all put into a really intriguing environment.

I was also certain I'd like this movie when I saw the who the cast would be. While the movie didn't have any of my favorite actors I thought it was very well cast. Johnny Depp playing a cool and efficient bank robber who got the public on his side. Marion Cotillard had the right face for a movie set in 1930's Chicago. Bale, the most "intense" actor in Hollywood, was a good fit for the straigt-laced G-Man on Dillinger's tail.

So, when I walked into the theater on Friday night, I was pretty sure I was going to walk out having really liked the movie. And that's exactly how I felt about Public Enemies: I liked it...I didn't love it...and that's a little disappointing. The films opening scenes of Dillinger leading a prison break and then robbing a bank were well done but these early scenes exemplified some issues I would have with the rest of the movie.

The leading complaint I've heard about Public Enemies is the camera work - this doesn't look like any gangster movie you've seen before. Mann uses hand-held Digital cameras for the entirety of the film. It is the same style he made Miami Vice and Collateral with, so while it isn't surprising, it is jarring to see a film set in the 1930's that has that look. Using this camera style in a period film, is not quite as effective as those two modern thrillers and at times it feels more like home movie recreations than a major Hollywood production. I've heard others complain the camera work reminded them of The Blair Witch Project, I disagree (it's never full on shaky cam), but I can see what they're saying. The Camera is often a split second behind what's happening - a gun will fire off screen and then the camera will turn towards it - which was suppose to immerse you in the action of the film but that doesn't quite come through.

The other thing that could be noticed about these early scenes is that Mann really isn't concerned with making the movie fun. Now let me say right now that I thought the movie was very fun to watch, but that's me, and as I said I really like things associated with that era. Mann plays the film very seriously. While Depp makes Dillinger an interesting and charismatic character the script is not very concerned with portraying Dillinger as the public saw him: A flamboyant robin hood figure. There's some of that, they accurately show how Dillinger would leap over the bank teller's desk like Zorro, but you wouldn't be able to say that the film's tone is anything but quite hard and meditative.

Still, the opening worked for me and I liked how it threw us right into the main part of our narrative. It didn't give us a long intro to each character - it trusted us to get who these guys were - and just started with a bank heist scene with no buildup. It was great to see this as the planning behind these bank jobs was not that interesting but the efficiency and professionalism showed while pulling them off is.

Also in the opening moments we are introduced to Christian Bale's Melvin Purvis, the FBI agent who would get credit for taking down Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, and others, in what is probably Bale's best scene. Set to Otis Taylor's "Ten Million Slaves", we see Bale pursuing and killing Channing Tatum's Pretty Boy Floyd in an exciting introduction where Bale's monotonely glum and flat performance actually has some cold purpose. I can mention here that the repeated use of Otis Taylor's, and later Bille Holliday's, music is very effective throughout the film.

The movie plays out as you know it will, Dillinger's cat and mouse game with the FBI is the heart of the movie, with Dillinger's relationship to his girlfriend Billie (Cotillard) and J. Edgar Hoover's (Billy Crudup) effort to assert the newly formed FBI's authority as subplots. In general the overall narative of the film isn't the film's strength but simply setting out to recreate the final year of Dillinger's life was enough for me.

The acting in the film ranges from merely okay to great. Bale, looking kind of bored throughout, does not impress as Melvin Purvis. While it's true that the role didn't offer enough substance to his role, Bale still could have mined it for more, and Bale completes a much weaker 2009 summer than his blockbuster 2008. Cotillard is just kind of there, she has the look but not the magnetism for the role, but she does get a nice scene when the FBI "interrogates" her. The other supporting roles, Crudup as Hoover, Stephen Graham as Baby Face Nelson, Stephen Dorff as Dillinger's partner Homer Van Meter are all well chosen and help sell the setting of the action.

The standout is Depp who nails the role of Dillinger. Thoughtful, naive, playful, professional, a little psychotic, loving, a bit of a cad...it's all there. This is Depp's best performance in quite awhile, and his best non-cartoony (i.e. not Jack Sparrow) performance since Donnie Brasco. No matter what the flaws of the movie were I was always engrossed when Depp was on screen.

Mann's direction, outside of the strange camerawork decision, is solid as always. His gunfights are exciting, the confrontational scenes are well paced, and his handling of the last night of Dillinger's life is masterfully done. The film isn't as luscious as Sam Mendes' Road to Perdition but Mann clearly enjoyed making a film set in a 1930's version of his hometown of Chicago and the film's aesthetic nicely blends the active life of Chicago and the empty landscapes of rural Illinois.

The film is long, and a little scattered, and I am not crazy about how they fudge some of the sequencing of historical events (they have Baby Face Nelson dying before Dillinger which isn't how it happened in real life) but that's what happens with historical dramas. So I was slightly let down by Public Enemies, I had hoped it would be a Best Picture contender and it just isn't, but it is a very solid entry into the gangster cannon. The flaws, though undeniable, simply did not bother me that much when measured against how good Mann and Depp are at what they do, and how compelling a subject Dillinger makes for a film. So I was right, I knew I would like this movie and I did, but unfortunately I did not love it.

Grade: B+

Best Scene: It's a tie - The opening showing Dillinger robbing a bank and Purvis gunning down Floyd and then Depp's final scenes as Dillinger goes to see a gangster movie on the last night of his life.

Random Thoughts on the Best Original Song Oscar (The 2000s)

Let's finally wrap this up. We start with 2001...


Here is the complete list of nominees and winners in the 2000s

In 2001 Disney/Pixar scored another win with "If I Didn't Have You" from Monster's Inc won. The song was written by Randy Newman who finally won his Oscar:



The only other song I know from that year is "Vanilla Sky" by Sir Angela Lansbury:



Neither song is that good but Angela's is a little worse so let's just say "Good for Randy".

2002 was a better year for Original Songs. U2 and Paul Simon were both nominated for "The Hands That Built America" from Gangs of New York and "Father and Daughter" from The Wild Thornberrys Movie respectively.

Here's U2's effort:



...Meh.

Well these two Rock and Roll Hall of Famers lost to Eminem who's "Lose Yourself" definitely deserved the win:


My second favorite movie song of 2002 wasn't even nominated. That was "Something to Talk About" by Badly Drawn Boy from About a Boy:


Catchy little tune. Still, at least Eminem won.

In 2003 a song from The Return of the King won. Yeah, I know. It was called "Into the West" and it was written by Fran Walsh (one of the screenwriters), Howard Shore (the film's composer), and Annie Lennox:


Yikes. That's some serious suck. I'm gonna guess no one who voted actually listened to that song and just voted for Return of the King in every category.

What should have won? Hard to say..."You Will Be My Ain True Love" from Cold Mountain by Sting and Allison Kraus?


Nah...

"Belleville Rendez-Vous" from The Triplets of Belleville should have won:


Quirky fun.

2004 was not a fantastic year. "Al Otro Lado Del Rio" by Jorge Drexler from The Motorcycles Won:


The only song I've heard of from the list of nominees this year is "Accidentally in Love" by Counting Crows from Shrek 2:



Not their best song by a long shot. Kinda catchy / kinda grating / kinda happy that didn't win.

Moving to 2005 we have one of my favorite winners in Oscar history (original song or otherwise). Three 6 Mafia won for their epic tune "Hard Out Here for a Pimp" from Hustle and Flow:



(Note future Oscar Nominee Taraji P. Henson, who was in Hustle and Flow, singing the backup).

This thankfully beat the two other nominees, one of which was from the hated Crash ("In the Deep").

I'm not totally sure that "Hard Out Here For a Pimp" was the best song from Hustle and Flow (though it was always the one that had a chance of winning). I've always liked "Whoop That Trick":



2006 has three songs from Dreamgirls and they all blocked one another I guess because "I Need to Wake Up" from An Inconvenient Truth and written and performed by Al Gore (kidding...it was Melissa Etheridge) won:



I think people were surprised that the Beyonce led "Listen" didn't win...


Needless to say that's not my favorite.

Maybe Chris Cornell's "You Know My Name" from Casino Royale could have gotten a nomination:


2007 was suppose to be Disney's return to the Best Original Song category win column. Enchanted was nominated for three different songs and "That's How You Know" was suppose to bring home the gold(en statue):



But in a great and surprising upset, "Falling Slowly" from Once won the Oscar:



I'm very happy "Falling Slowly" beat Enchanted but I also think there was an even better song in Once that wasn't even nominated:



Finally, in 2008 only three songs were nominated. Many whined that Bruce Springsteen's "The Wrestler" was not nominated but I honestly can't tell you why as I thought the song sucked.

The winner was the fun and smile inducing "Jai Ho" by A.R. Rahman from Slumdog Millionaire:




And that's all there is for now. Hope you enjoyed this look back and the winners, losers, and should have wons in this category over the last 40 years

Everything you wanted to know about Transformers 2...

Some Linky Goodness:

Everything you might have wondered about Transformers: Rise of the Fallen...

Warning: There are spoilers in that article but you really shouldn't care)

Henry Saw: Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen

I hate America


I won't pretend that I have anything that new to say about this movie. Better critics than me like Roger Ebert and Russ Fischer at Slashfilm.com have already had a go at assessing Transformers 2 and saying all that needs to be said about this horror show. In short, this movie is a total mess, blatantly offensive at times, and a 150 minute long headache that has made 200 million dollars in 5 days. Jeez...

I don't quite know where to start this autopsy so let's start with the plot. Now, contrary to what other reviews might have said, this movie does have a plot. An inane, confusing, deux ex machina filled, dumb plot. But it has a story. Anyone who has suffered through other bad science fiction, or lame saturday morning cartoons, should be able to track this film's storyline. Picking up two years after the last film, the good robots (Autobots) are helping the humans find the evil robots (Decepticons) and kill them. Meanwhile, Sam (Shia LaBeouf) is leaving for Princeton and is still in his relationship with his hot girlfriend Mikaela (hot Megan Fox). What Sam doesn't know is that during the events of the first film, his mind got imprinted with directions to a hidden super weapon that the Decepticons want to use to destroy the earth. Thus the fight is on for Sam, and the Earth's, safety.

That's the plot in a nut-shell. And yes, it sucks. And yes, it goes in all sorts of other directions, distractions, and "Really? You're gonna spend time showing us this?" ways. But the plot is not what keeps this movie from being good. It's not like the first film's plot was Shakespearean and I kind of enjoyed the first one. What hurts this sequel is how goddamn bloated and stupid it is. There's an extended scene of Sam's mom running around his campus high because she accidentally ate a pot brownie. It's not funny, it doesn't advance the plot, and it's so forced that it made me squirm in my seat. There's a tiny decepticon that Mikaela captures that has a nasty attitude and ends up humping her leg to her great amusement. This character is slightly more important to the plot in that he has one line of dialogue that helps our heroes but he's another superfluous and groan-worthy distraction in the film.

So much of this movie is superfluous in fact. Sam's roomate Leo, played by Ramon Rodriguez, comes along for the ride for comic relief and adds nothing (not laughs nor pathos). There are multiple shots of Sam's two dogs humping each other because that's funny I guess. There's a long scene in Sam's Astronomy class featuring Rainn Wilson (from the Office) that is just completely useless. You get my point. But it's not that this movie was a good editor away from being acceptable. It gets worse.

There are two robot characters in this film that have to be seen to be believed. Maybe you've read about them. Their names are Skids and Mudflap and while they're not in black-face they come damn close. They're design is somewhat ape-like, one has a gold tooth prominently featured (for no practical reason), they talk in stereotypical "street" talk (as written by two white guys), brag about being illiterate, and are just kind of jaw-droppingly...wrong. Look, can I say that the two characters were out-and-out racist? Well, I'm not really in a position to judge that. Not only that but there is an argument that could be made against the idea that the characters are racist. One could say that I'm projecting my own thoughts on the characters and that the two robots aren't supposed to be "black" but just "generic street-thug": White, Hispanic, Asian, whatever - any kind of person who enjoys calling people "bitch-ass", picking fights, and revels in being ignorant. Well to that I'd say that perpetuating a stereotype commonly associated with people of a certain race then claiming that the problem is with how people are perceiving that stereotype is a very weak defense. All I know is that these two characters made me very uncomfortable and the writers of the film felt the same.

Michael Bay was of course the director of this film (he did the first one too) and you get all the Bay-isms one has come to expect in his film. Amazingly hot ladies who never have a hair out of place, awesome military dudes doing awesome things in awesome machines (seriously, why didn't he just direct G.I. Joe?), lots of things blowing up, lots of famous buildings falling down, etc. I actually like Michael Bay. I think there is a place for him in cinema. The Rock and Bad Boys 2 are two of my favorite action movies (The Rock because it's just a really tight and solid film and Bad Boys 2 because it's so charmingly over-the-top). With the first Transformers I actually enjoyed the set-up and the comedy (though it was often groan-worthy) but couldn't follow the action at all. It looked like it was choreographed by children banging action figures together. There was no way to identify the good robots from the bad and Bay focused way too much on the human perspective of the action rather than actually showing what the audience wanted to see. I remember wondering how Michael Bay had made a movie about Robots Fighting in which the best scenes had nothing to do with robots fighting.

Well Bay kinda reverses that with the sequel as the best scenes are now all the action scenes while everything else is embarrassing. The action is much clearer this time out but you still have too many robots, who all look too similar, just kinda rolling on and around each other. The standout scene is a big fight between the main robot hero Optimus Prime and two (or three? Who knows?) Decepticons that occurs in a forest near Princeton. It's a solid "rock-em sock-em" fight scene but it's also incredibly hard to get too invested in cgi robots repeatedly punching each other. Without a lot of variety or consequence to the action scenes I found I just didn't get too excited for them. The last action scene, which lasts around 50 minutes I'd guess, is shockingly dull. Am I kind of saying that Bay can't win for me with this franchise? ...Kind of. But it didn't need to be this bad.

I led off this review by saying "I hate America". Well I hate America because my packed theater last night was laughing at whatever Step-Bot and Fetchit-Tron said and did. I hate how this quintessentially American film portrays France, immigrants, the government, college, etc. And I hate that this film is a gigantic hit (though it I predict it will have a big drop next weekend) and that most of America (Yes, and England, Japan, etc.) will forgive this movie its sins because it's just a robot action movie. Normally I'd agree with this thinking: not every movie needs to be, or should be, a film like Schindler's List. Nor does every action movie need to be as oppressively serious as The Dark Knight; I loved Taken more than any other movie this year so far. Yet, we should demand more of our pop entertainment than Transformers: Rise of the Fallen. Yeah, this movie is just a big toy commercial but does it have to be such a stinking pile of crap? Do we have to have John Turturro talking about a robot's "scrotum" while the Decipticon's giant metal testicles swing around?

Don't see this movie. Don't listen to someone who says "Well if you're gonna see it you have to see it on the big screen". Just don't see it. It's like the first one but much more retarded, exasperating, and forgettable. I went in expecting to dislike the film but I'm surprised at how much I hate it.

Grade: D+

Best Scene: That Forest fight I guess...or just the hot girls in the film in general...I dunno. It really stunk.

Henry Saw: Half of Year One

I made it a whole 45 minutes!


This is a limp, sad, boring, stupid, choppy, irritating, predictable, cliche-ridden, fart stain of movie that has not one redeeming quality (I went those painful 45 minutes without even smirking once) and is just a huge turd. This isn't historically bad but it's certainly the worst film of the summer this far. Both Jack Black and Michael Cera need to be shot to the moon or shot in the head. Their shtick is incredibly played out and the combination of the two was just more than I could handle. I'd hate this movie but it wasn't even enough of a movie to feel passionately about. It was just a series of random skits that were the opposite of funny. The worst thing about a really bad comedy is that there is nothing funny about them. A bad drama or action movie you can sometimes laugh at the film; a bad comedy is just awkward and infuriating. I could go on but I don't have the time or desire to continue to tell you not to see this movie. Instead, I will quote a smart man who was in the theater when I saw V For Vendetta with two friends. This wise fellow stood up as the credits rolled on V For Vendetta, another terrible film, and yelled loudly:

"BOO, BOO, BOO"

Indeed. Boo Year One. Boo, Boo, Boo.

Grade: D-

Best Scene: Not Applicable

Oscar Expands Best Picture Nominees to 10

Wow...I'm kinda surprised.


Full story here at Variety.com

You may or may not know that until 1944 the Academy would nominate 10 films in the Best Picture category. So this isn't entirely new...but it is pretty surprising. The thing my brain immediately leaps to is that this is in reaction to The Dark Knight not getting nominated but it obviously has more behind it than that.

Look, now an additional 5 films get to market themselves as being "NOMINATED FOR BEST PICTURE" which will help them at the box office in the early months of the new year. This could also spike ratings for the broadcast of the Academy Awards as more people will have a dog in the fight (do you know how many nerds would have tuned in last year if there was the slight chance The Dark Knight could win Best Picture?). Finally, it will just generate more business in general...more adds in magazines, on T.V., etc.

I am not sure how I feel about it yet. My first reaction is slightly negative...just feels like too much. Is it nice that Pixar's Up will now get nominated for Best Picture instead of just winning the Best Animated Film award (though it will still win that)? Yeah, it's nice. It's good that more quality films will get recognition and attention, but maybe I just don't like change because I am not a big fan of this move. Still, it's interesting, and because my favorite film of last year Let the Right One In is actually eligible for the awards this year for some reason...I'll admit I have my fingers crossed.

Henry Saw: The Taking of Pelham 123

An okay thriller but nothing remarkable...


So Tony Scott's new film The Taking of Pelham 123 is actually a little better than I thought it would be. John Travolta is usually movie poison and Denzel Washington has not been a guarantee that a movie will be good for the last half dozen years (John Q, Deja Vu, Out of Time, The Manchurian Candidate, were all varying degrees of lame). As for Tony Scott, he's very hit or miss, and his last few films were big whiffs. Both Domino and Deja Vu were very weak (Domino being the worse of two) and his "extreme" style, which helped make Man On Fire a bizarre, awesome, fever-induced dream of an action movie only made Domino and Deja Vu headache inducing.

So I was a bit worried that Pelham 123 would be a bit of a disaster. It's not, in fact it is perfectly watchable, but it is also quite forgettable. It's a remake of a film from the 1970's that I haven't seen but from all accounts is a very different kind of movie. Where the 70's version is quite gritty and a clear case of good versus evil (Walter Matthieu starred as the hero and Robert Shaw was the hijacker) played out in grimy 70's New York, the updated 2000's verison adds moral ambiguity to the main characters, a subplot about the New York Mayor, stock market manipulation, and of course, Scott adds action, jump cuts, and a modern slickness to the whole proceeding.

The basic plot is similar in both films: Some armed gunman hijack a New York Subway car and demand a large sum of money (in the 1970's it was 1 Million dollars, now it's 10 Million). Someone back at the dispatch offices gets stuck talking to the head of the hijackers and having to negotiate with him. That's the basic hook of the film.

This means that the key moments in the film are when John Travolta and Denzel Washington talk to each other, find out what they can about one another, and try to relate to each other despite the wild circumstances of their "meeting". And these scenes are actually pretty strong. Travolta, who is playing it over-the-top, still manages to not be too annoying; and Denzel does yeoman work as the dispatcher put in a very hard position.

The rest of the film, however, is not nearly as compelling as these all too brief scenes between Travolta and Washington. The actual taking of the subway by Travolta and his men (including Luis Guzman for some reason) is not exciting in the least. Also dull are multiple shots of ransom money being ferreted around the city and everything having to do with James Gandolfini's Mayoral turn. Scott's hyper-kinetic, quick-cutting, ultra closeup, style is actually scaled back a bit here but Scott does nothing in real service of the story. He tells the story just fine but doesn't add to it in any way.

The leads are also flawed in their roles in some ways. As I said, Travolta manages to not be too annoying but he's also not exactly an all time great villain here. Travolta talks loudly, drops a lot of F-Bombs and seems to be having fun with the role but we are never totally with or against him. He never forces us see things his way or root against him...he's just kind of a stock caricature of the "crazy and fun" villain. Do I respect the film for letting him actually shoot some people and make good on threats? Yeah, I do, but the script lets Travolta down a bit (I can't believe I just wrote that). The only problem with Denzel Washington is that he's Denzel Washington and so I never really bought him as just an average Joe, which is the point of his role (Look! He poured coffee all over himself! He's just like me!) and he also doesn't sell the action beat his character gets towards the end of the film.

All in all this is a painless 100 minutes of movie watching. It's certainly a step up from Scott and Washington's last effort together (Deja Vu) and Travolta manages to not make me squirm at his terribleness...but there's nothing special here. It is a movie you forget about the minute the credits start rolling and you won't remember it until it pops up on Starz in 20 months. It's fine, it's just that there are better things to see right now, and this will play just fine on an airplane...

Grade: B-

Best Scene: When Travolta demands for Washington's character to get back on the phone.