Again, i'm sorry i've been so sluggish with my posting. I'm behind for the second time this week. I guess maybe there's more to life than writing about movies on the internet for four people (who I appreciate greatly by the way).
Today I discuss Heaven’s Gate (1981), one of the most epically disastrous films in American history. At 219 minutes, this film is more than asking for a bad rap. It’s practically begging to be poorly reviewed by anyone dumb-enough to sit through the whole thing. Made by Michael Cimino, director of The Deer Hunter (1978), Heaven’s Gate (1981) was easily the most anticipated film of the early 80’s, if not the most anticipated film of the decade (which incidentally, the trailer claimed it to be). After Deer Hunter (1978) won best picture at the 1978 academy awards, United Artists (a fairly large studio) gave the newly crowned Michael Cimino carte blanche to make his next film, and while most director’s would be honored to even get then chance to make a second film, Cimino apparently believed he deserved carte blanche. So much so in fact, that he spent $36 million making the most tediously drawn out anti-western ever made. Even after the film was reviled by critics nation-wide, Cimino pulled the film from wide-release, insisting that by re-editing it, he could make everyone happy with just a little more time. This resulted in an even longer cut being pushed into theaters with a late release, eventually grossing under $2 million domestically. Based on the domestic gross of Heaven’s Gate (1981), United Artists was forced to dissolve both their distribution and production branches, ceasing to be a notable studio until they were resurrected in the late 90’s. Cimino was blacklisted in Hollywood, and would have to fight to even be involved in any subsequent projects for the rest of his career. People often wonder if the virtues of The Deer Hunter (1978) were the responsibility of Cimino, or the combined efforts of the rest of the crew.

All history aside, I actually enjoyed a great deal of Heaven’s Gate (1981). The major quarrel I have has more to do with the pacing and meticulous attention to detail running rampant throughout the film than the actual plot or performances. Obviously any film running close to four hours long is going to be hard pressed to entertain unconditionally, and when the genre is one which rarely exceeds 120 minutes, it becomes exceptionally challenging to justify the bloated nature of the picture. From an actors standpoint, the casting was fitting, showcasing a set of strong performances from the still young Christopher Walken, Jeff Bridges, and Isabelle Huppert. The real magic here is created from Kris Kristofferson in his role as a man born into wealth, but trying desperately to be a man of the people. As a protagonist, Kris really gets you to trust him without much setup, while his strong moral choices, and underdog sensibilities play wonderfully off of the drunk and confused ones of John Hurt, as Kristofferson’s former collegiate classmate. The most revered detail of the film was the cinematography, and even to this day, the swirling golden hues created from the mixture of dust and sunsets is beautiful to watch. Unfortunately, the dramatic context of the film isn’t properly introduced for about 45 minutes, effectively alienating the audience, and giving the feeling that there is something more meaningful going on that only the most specific audience is aware of. Due to the technology available at the time, the action scenes are fairly ineffectual, and really more disorienting than anything else, while the anticipation felt as the major battle approaches is very tangible and worth remembering.
All in all, I’d say that this commercial monstrosity is a pretentious mess, filled with some really wonderful moments, but the picture ultimately fails, as it tries to accomplish more than it’s genre has any business accomplishing. I wish I could give it more credit, but I have to give the film a c- or a 61%
-Ben

12 Angry Men...but 75 minutes longer

Welcome to my first actual review of "seconds week." I apologize for never finishing my review for David Lynch's Wild at Heart (1990), but I honestly became so irritated with the style of film making, I just moved on to better things (sleeping, eating entire large pizza's, watching Dirty Dancing...twice). The hilarious part is that of his films, this one has one of the clearest, least confusing narratives, but nonetheless, I got lazy. That said, here we are; My final choices for week 2 are as follows:
1. For a Few Dollars More (1965)
2. Rebel Without a Cause (1955)
3. Heaven's Gate (1980)
4. 12 (2007)
5. The Two Jakes (1990) *this one is both a sequel and has #2 in the title.

I've just come from watching 12 (2007), Nikita Mikhalkov's recent remake of the American classic film, 12 Angry Men (1957). The original film, directed by revered American director Sydney Lumet is often considered to be one of the greatest American films ever made. Set in post world war 2 America, the original confronted issues of racial prejudices, and asked questions of basic morality. At the time, the movie made quite an impact, and as such has been the subject of several American remakes over the last 50 years.

Tonight's film even had been nominated for an oscar for "best foreign language film." The Russian director is widely considered to be the Russian Spielberg, being responsible for several oscar winning films previously. Unfortunately though, this remake isn't the instant classic that I was expecting; Chocked full of poignant moments and memorable monologues it was, but it was also unbearably long. The original film leaves you feeling satisfied at 96 minutes with an unoffensive and ambiguous ending. Being that the premise for both films is the 12 men sitting around a table arguing over whether or not an uneducated boy is guilty or not guilty of murder, 96 minutes is more than a fair amount of time to tell this tale. Not for Mikhalkov though. For him, every single character had to have their own built up monologue, painting a tragically metaphoric picture related to the accused boy. In almost every case though, you're left feeling that these simple people are trying too hard to outdo one another with thick, dangerously contrived melodrama. That aside, out of the 159 minutes in this film, about 100 of them were spectacular. Certain moments were perfectly resonant, and certain actors drew us in all too well. It's just unfortunate that this film didn't become terrible for one long stretch, and that the bland moments had to pollute the entire script. If you're interested in seeing this film, be sure to watch the original first, as most of it's most wonderful developments are taken directly from the source. Overall, I give this film a B -, or a 71%.

Next up, Heaven's Gate (1980), the biggest commercial flop in the history of movies. See you then.
-Ben

A New Week of Films

This will be a week of seconds. As it is no longer my inaugural week of blogging, I will be celebrating this week as the birth of a new era;



That era is week #2. The films this week will all be famous seconds in some way, be it in their chronological significance, their title, etc. The list is as follows; A sequel, a remake, a notable director's second film, a notable actors second film, and a film with the number 2 in the title.


1. For a Few Dollars More (1965)
2. Rebel Without a Cause (1955)
3. Heaven's Gate (1980)
4. 12 (2007)
5. Undetermined as yet

As I watch these films, I'll explain the significance of each one. Unfortunately, i've been lazy about posting over the last couple of days, and today isn't gonna be much better. I'm going to have to cut this short, and head to the video store to get the films. Perhaps by tonight I'll have watched the first one. Thanks for checking in. By the way, has everybody already seen the trailer for Where the Wild Things Are (2009)? It's easily the most exciting bit of movie news in a couple of weeks. Directed by Spike Jonze, this film should really be something special. Check it out; Also, i've already seen Double Team (1997), I just might've watched it.
-Ben

King size candy bars

If I were to ask you to define the difference in quantity between a regular chocolate bar, and a king size candy bar, what would you say? Perhaps, "like wider and longer man," or 30% more. These are both reasonable descriptions, but in only one case are they grossly, grossly understated. That example is the king size kit-kat bar. At the office today, I sold a sponsored credit account to a client, and for this small miracle, the human resources department offered me $5 cash, and a piece of candy of my choice. The options presented were attractive to say the least, featuring among others, not only the aforementioned kat bar, but an m&m kudos, a pack of pepperidge farm mini-cookies, and most excitingly, a pack of the often overlooked, but always delicious mamba. For those who don't remember mamba, it is the fruit based candy, packed in the shape of rectangular starbursts, and offered in variety packs with 4 flavors and 16 pieces. After patting myself on the back for my accomplishment with the credit line, I asked my my manager (totally on purpose) if I could be excused to go redeem my credit receipt. She happily obliged me and I was on my way. Four floors later, I was faced smack dab in the middle of a dilemna. Do I take the rare cookies, the stand-in soccer practice snack, or the over-sized mainstream snack. To me, the math was simple. Just as I would never order any pizza from pagliacci less than a large, I would never pass up the opportunity to get more candy than less. I am in fact American, and to me, less is not more. More is more. That said, always remember that the king size hersheys kit-lat bar is the best option when trying to buy candy economically.
I don't like abstract film makers. I'm 30% finished with Wild at Heart (1990), and I really don't appreciate so far why it's considered this instant classic. Aside from Cage being his usual charming self, it's really confounding me. My conclusion is really just that between David Lynch and Brian DePalma, I hate non-linear, impressionistic film-makers. I'm a little behind on my Cage posts, so i'll wrap up the week with tomorrow's post. As for next weeks films though, I will reveal the list of 5 starting in the morning, after discussing my final opinion of David Lynch's 1990 ruckus. Until then, in the legendary words of Ving Rhames, "stay up baby boy."
-Bateman out

Bringing out the Dead

Is the age of the American action star over? Are the days of Schwarzennegger, Stallone, and Willis really dead and gone? I've just come from my weekly "popcorn cinema" showing, where Teddy and I watched Renny Harlin's 12 Rounds (2009). For those who aren't familiar with Harlin's past work, his repertoire includes such actions movie dregs/classics as Die Hard 2 (1990), Cliffhanger (1993), and Deep Blue Sea (1999). Tonights choice was about as predictably uninteresting as any film i've seen in a while, complete with explosions, soulless 1-dimensional characters, and a well placed 1 liner or 2. The only really intriguing thing thing about it was the classic approach to making an action movie like they did in the old days. The star, John Cena, is a former professional wrestler turned actor, like Goldberg, or Dwayne "the rock" Johnson. The only real difference between Johnson and Cena is that Johnson has all of the talent and comic timing of a young Mel Gibson, while Cena is about as interesting to watch as Ed Norton in Kingdom of Heaven (2005). So i'll pose the question once more; who is the predominant action star of today? Has the big tits, big guns, explosion filled genre been replaced by tights and super powers? The box-office earnings of those films would certainly suggest it. If anybody can think of an action star currently working who rivals the aforementioned legends, speak now, or forever hold your peace. In fact, if anyone can suggest someone worth mentioning, i'll let them decide on the theme for next weeks films. That said, lets get back to the man formerly known as Nicolas Coppola.
Bringing out the Dead (1999) is a very slow film. The pacing is clearly intentional, as the mentality of the main character, an EMT played by Cage, is very fatigued and exhausted. The tone of the film is manufactured by the colorful cast of supporting characters, and their slightly crazy mannerisms, which in turn are juxtaposed against an environment so unthinkably horrific, it becomes an arbitrary detail rather than a motive for action. Among the supporting cast are John Goodman, Ving Rhames, Tom Sizemore, and a predictably irritating Patricia Arquette. While I certainly wouldn't say that Martin Scorsese is known for his sweeping tributes to formulaic Hollywood, I would still fault this movie for straying so far from a tried and true structure that it loses the focus of the watcher. Although I was forced to watch it in 4 segments due to available time, I still feel it lacks definition in its plot developments, failing mostly in its second act (the middle 45 minutes). Scorsese directs the borderline crazy Cage in a very emotive performance, reminding me just a little of the dementia shown by DeNiro as Travis Bickle in the classic 1976 film, Taxi Driver (1976). As per usual, Cage has found himself in the middle of an interesting, but disappointing project, where he is the best thing involved. Who'd have thought Nicolas Cage would outdo the rest of the movie, even when Martin Scorsese is involved. Stranger things have happened.
-Ben

Saturday morning and why I can't focus

Good morning internet. I told myself i'd wake up early and cook breakfast, finish watching Bringing out the Dead (1999), and write my review, but unfortunately I didn't, so I won't. Instead, I slept in, woke up just in time to buy myself a shrimp, chicken, and beef teriyaki combo, and now for some reason, i'm watching Vanilla Sky (2001). I've seen it before, and if I remember correctly, it was pretty entertaining. So far, i'm right. As far as this teriyaki goes though, it's much better than I remember it being. Among the many hundreds of Seattle teriyaki joints, i'd say that everybody has a different favorite, but in my experience, Tokyo Garden Teriyaki on 45th and University is the best. For less than $6, you get an enormous serving of deliciously cooked chicken and rice, covered in the most delicious teriyaki sauce known to man (or at least known to me). The key here is the consistency of the sauce though. I wish I had a better adjective for it, but I think syrupy would be the proper word to describe it. The teriyaki from this morning though is a bit different, as its sauce is thinner, and its protein is presented more neatly. To save time, i'll just give the name and move on to a moment with Nicolas Cage. The teriyaki joint is located on 45th and Roosevelt, and is called "teriyaki plus. It's very good, and I highly reccomend it.
Now, onto another notch in the belt of Nicolas Cage. It's widely acknowledged that Nicolas Cage is the nephew of Francis Ford Coppola, and was originally named, and credited as "Nicolas Coppola," so his inclusion in various Coppola pictures isn't so surprising. More surprising is his inclusion in Bringing out the Dead (1999), as Martin Scorsese was still just a few films past critically acclaimed works like Goodfellas (1990), Cape Fear (1991), and Casino (1995). Nic wasn't doing such high profile art stuff. He was too caught up in following his oscar win with "bad-good" action classics like The Rock (1996), Con Air (1998), and Face/off (1997). I'm about 3/4 of the way through the 1999 film so far, and i'm entertained, but not impressed. Cage is definitely enjoyable to watch, but Ving Rhames really steals the show when he's on screen. Alright, work awaits, so i'm gonna end early. I'll be back to write the proper review soon.
-Bateman out

Leaving Las Vegas and Nicloas Cage's hairline

Hello again world. I'm glad to see you were so entertained by yesterdays post that you decided to come back. Just in case a readership of any kind, individual, or communal actually exists, and didn't read yesterdays post, this is entry number 2 in my weekly movie blog, "Five a Week." Over the weekend, I went to the movies with my good buddy Teddy, and we saw Knowing (2009). You may ask why exactly we felt in necessary to watch a film that was so clearly a piece of shit, and the reason is this; Every Saturday, Teddy and I head to the local theater to watch "the shittiest movie of the week." The criteria for this choice has shifted in some special weeks, but is still most firmly grounded in the expectation we have being low enough to be impressed by the film in the end. The tradition started about a year ago with 21 (2008), a film about card counting in Vegas, and has most recently been struggling to recover from the temporary high of oscar season. To further explain the outlandish appeal of this tradition, I will break it down as simply as I can; We go to the movies to see "popcorn cinema." To us, that usually means films that are either unintentionally funny due to poor quality, or films that are just generally entertaining based on big budget film principles (action, explosions, nudity, sex, anything to do with batman, etc.) This weeks Nicolas Cage vehicle stood as our second this year, as we had already marveled at the receding hairline he displayed so well in the sinister, but unfortunately named, Bangkok Dangerous (2008). We assumed that the general reaction to his assasin hairstyle was probably so appalling, he would insist on something better for his next picture. I guess someone didn't get the memo though because Nic just shortened the back and shaved off his sideburns completely, creating some sort strange birds next of hair on his head. That having been said, the film itself was almost too strange to be properly criticized. The set-up led us to a dubious payoff, involving some sort of combination of alien/catholic imagery combined with a special effects show belonging to a film like Armageddon (1998). While I will admit that certain moments in the film were unsettling, and even a little scary, the movie itself just never gave me anything close to what I was expecting to watch. I wanted to see The Day After Tomorrow (2004), but ended up watching A.I. (2001), meets Children of The Corn (1984), directed by Michael Bay or something. The director, Alex Proyas, has done a couple of interesting films in the past, so the abstract nature of the story isn't totally unpredictable, just marketed poorly. Also, Cage turns in yet another completely cardboard action star performance, complete with all the sadness and conviction we've become accustomed to in the last 8 or so films. It's almost absurd that this man actually won an oscar the first time he was ever nominated. I don't doubt that he still has the chops, but either he owes somebody a great deal of money, or his agent is addicted to smack, because nobody can take so many poor projects back to back. Let's look back to Mike Figgis' oscar winning portrait of an alcoholic on his way to the grave to really understand how far Mr. Cage has truly fallen. Until this film, Cage was still considered to be a darling of Hollywood, doing films like Raising Arizona (1987), and Moonstruck (1987). As the nephew of legendary director, Francis Ford Coppola, Cage was even in cult classics like Rumble Fish (1983), and The Cotton Club (1984). Although he had a run of bad luck in the early 90's with some poorly made thriller's, he still gave the performance of his life in 1995's Leaving Las Vegas (1995). For this role, he beat out the brilliant Sean Penn for the "best male in a leading role" oscar. I just watched the film as part of my 5 films this week, and for the sake of practice, I will review it for you (or just me if no-one is there).
I believe that like so many other films, Leaving Las Vegas was praised as an oscar worthy film, based solely on the strength of the actors involved. Recently, Doubt (2008) did the same thing, and although it was largely uncelebrated at the oscars, David Mamet's Glengarry Glenross (1992), may be the most famous example in recent years. When reviewed as a complete piece of art, Las Vegas is really a sup-par film, as the only engrossing elements are Nicolas Cage's tragically hilarious alcoholic, and Elizabeth Shue's less entertaining, but still very truthful portrayal of a prostitute. The films narrative tries to seem very personal, as you are with these two in their very endearing, and emotionally intimate relationship whole film. Figgis tries to bring you in even closer as he has Shue's character talk to the camera as if it were an attentive therapist, attempting to give a very candid tone to the film. Ultimately though, when deviating from Cage, the film slows down, and becomes dark and depressing, instead of charming and sincere. The outcome of the characters fates are shown to us right at the beginning of the film, but nonetheless, you keep hoping for a different resolution, as the harrowing honesty shown to us by Cage is so endearing it almost has us forget the vile nature of men consumed by a substance. The films in your face depiction of an addict past the point of recovery is stirring and probably very real to a great number of people familiar to the subject. The small sub-plot at the beginning feels cliche' and out of place, but is quickly forgotten, as it only really serves as a means to advance the story. The standout quality that Nicolas Cage shows here is so unique, that he has seldom if ever performed on this level again. Charlie Kaufman's Adaptation (2002) was Cage's only other oscar nomination, and deservedly so, as when Cage is at the top of his game, he stands alone as a symbol of humorous dysfunction. I only wish he'd stop making trashy action flicks and styling his hair, and return to his place as Hollywood's most successful character actor, turned leading man.