TheSequelOfDisney wrote:Brazil - What an interesting and weird film. I have to say that I've never seen anything like it before. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it because I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. Jonathan Pryce was convincing as Sam Lowry, but the character and film was so different I guess he did a good job. I don't know. Maybe I need to watch it again.
You should; even after watching the fifth or sixth time, I still noticed new things. Did you spot Terry Gilliam's cameo as the man spying on Sam in Shangri-La Towers?
In the past week, I've watched:
A Fistful of Dollars - A bit slow-paced, but still entertaining. I liked how little we knew about the protagonist, making him a good audience surrogate character and also allowing us to theorise about his past (I think that, as a child, he was in a similar situation to the little boy whose mother was kept hostage by one of the criminal groups). The showdown was excellently directed and I loved the moment when he appeared through the smoke. The camera's pan up at the end was a nice (if perhaps clichéd) touch too.
For a Few Dollars More - I disliked this sequel. It was repetitive, Eastwood's character was paper-thin and his witticisms were weak. I'm not too fond of the formula, because the weak plot is just a contrived way to lead to showdowns and gunfights. It also rode on the back of the previous film's quality and style, lacking originality. Nevertheless, I can understand why some would like it. Probably the most irksome thing is that it relies on shock value for the villains' actions and the bloody violence, yet it's lacklustre compared to modern movies' violence. It should have focused on characterisation more.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - The only truly excellent feature in Leone's spaghetti Western trilogy, in my view at least. Although Clint Eastwood does little besides squint, Eli Wallach is hilarious and sympathetic as Tuco and Lee Van Cleef is perfect for the cliché villain role, smirking maliciously and glaring malevolently at his victims. I was surprised by the development of Tuco and the subtle friendship growing between him and Blondie, which was portrayed beautifully in the scene just after they leave the monastery. Sergio Leone's direction is out of this world: intense close-ups make it personal and gets us to sweat along with the characters, similar somewhat to the camerawork in 12 Angry Men. And of course, there are some superb sequences where much is conveyed without dialogue, merely using music and cinematography: Angel Eyes' first scene with his first victim, the scene where Tuco desperately runs around the graves of Sad Hill Cemetery, and of course the showdown. Up until I watched this, I believed that the greatest scene in cinema history was the crop-duster chase in North by Northwest. Not any more - the showdown between the three titular characters is somehow more suspenseful, the music and tension building and building and building brilliantly.
The Apartment - Funny, charming and cleverly written. Carried almost entirely by Jack Lemmon's sympathetic and naturalistic performance, I don't think it gets close to the excellence of Sunset Boulevard yet it's still a wonderful film.
Rain Man - The first time I've watched this film in full. I was somewhat surprised by the various characters' ignorance of autism, and didn't realise that it wasn't particularly well-known or well-understood back then. It works because Tom Cruise's character goes from selfish and uncaring towards Raymond to loving and almost understanding, yet Dustin Hoffman's brilliant portrayal is doubtlessly superior. It's not flawed, but it's not a masterpiece either - it goes in the same section of films as, say, Misery. It has the same winning combination of sentiment and comedy that Planes, Trains and Automobiles has and I liked it, yet I probably won't watch it again.
12 Angry Men (1997) - The original 1957 version is my favourite film. I watched this remake out of curiousity, expecting it to be well-made but utterly pointless. It was definitely pointless, but it's a very poor film. Many of the actors don't suit their roles and many are quite bad in their roles, particularly the over-the-top, unintentionally hilarious actor as Juror 10. Jack Lemmon seems to be past his sell-by-date and thus the needed tension between Jurors 3 and 8 is missing. No one matches the performances of the original actors, and the additions to the script (including a sound-only prologue of the murder) are unnecessary. The only actor who gives a reasonably good performance is George C Scott, but Lee J Cobb is far better as the same juror. Overall, it's nothing compared to the fantastic original, and nothing more than an embarrassing stain on the filmographies of the few talented cast members.