Quentin Tarantino vs. Michael Bay... ok so not the hardest to predict match up. We decided to include Michael Bay so that we had more action directors and popular films in the contest but needless to say it went pretty much where you would expect.
Reservoir Dogs- This film brought back some memories. Back in the good old days of the early 90s before CGI and massive budgets Tarantino managed to make a gripping, graphic, Hong Kong action film on a tiny budget for the American audience. Man what a great film this is. If your able to get past the fact that a lot of Tarantino's style is now well trodden in his later films (like mobster characters, dialog too cool for real people, and gratuitous shocking violence) then your going to be blown away the first time you see it. You can almost feel the love of Asian cinema pouring out of the film. The mastery of characters is one of Tarantino's trademarks and here it is on full display. Each of the film's main characters is identified only by a color ( Mr. Green, Mr. Blond, Mr. Pink, etc.) and each where's a nearly identical black suit with a skinny tie yet you have no trouble distinguishing between their motives and back stories. The fact that 90% of the film takes place in a warehouse and still manages to hold you attention for 2 plus hours is also amazing. The tightness of the plot felt early on unravels perfectly and ends in bloodbath that feels perfect despite the obviousness. And man I still think that dancing torture scene is perhaps one of the best scenes in all of film.
Genre- Crime Drama 9/10
Characters - 9/10
Mood, Theme, Ambiance - 9/10
Inventiveness - 8/10
Film Quality - 9/10
Total - 44/50
The Rock- OK so I'm not going to spend too much time on this because I'm not really sure how much time Bay spent making it. The plot involves a former Green Beret General conquering Alcatraz (because despite it being out of use for 50 years its still an impenetrable fortress?) so that he can threaten San Francisco with ballistic missiles and deadly chemical weapons capable of killing everyone in the city, forcing the US to pay a ransom to the families of dead soldiers in his former brigade who got no service pay after they died. The only solution to the problem is Sean Connery (the only man to escape from Alcatraz) and Nick Cage ( FBI chemical weapons expert) to break in and stop them. Then the plot gets ridiculous. That's about as far as I'm going to summarize and needless to say its filled with constant action sequences, car chases, shootouts, and smash cuts that make Bay's work the trash that it is. Each character is beyond unrealistic, the plot has the logic of a Frank Miller comic book, and unlike Tarantino nothing is ironic. One last point and I'm not sure how much time people wanna spend working on the logic of a Bay film but aren't prison's built to keep people out not prevent them from coming in?
Genre -Action 1/10
Characters 2/10
Mood, Theme, Ambiance - 1/10
Inventiveness - 1/10
Film Quality - 2/10
Total - 7/50
Pulp Fiction - This is the film that brought Tarantino to national attention as far as I can tell. It blew away audiences (me included) in the early 90s and secured itself a best picture nod in a time when far more obvious Oscar bait was winning on a consistent basis. Again as is always the case with Tarantino the strength of the film is in its characters here anchored by Samuel Jackson and a reemerging John Travolta (everything that Travolta did both decent and horribly tasteless after this film is due entirely to this casting). The film unlike Reservoir Dogs and more similar to Tarantino's future films is really a series of vignettes that string together an out of time plot of again murderous mobsters and various other underworld criminals. Once again Tarantino makes some of the strangest characters seem perfectly relatable to an average audience and the out of time nature of the plot hides perfectly what in order would be just an average film.
Genre- Crime Drama 9/10
Characters 10/10
Mood, Theme, Ambiance 9/10
Inventiveness 9/10
Film Quality 9/10
Total: 46/50
Armageddon - I remember being in high school and having this film come out at and everyone loving it. By everyone here I mean all of my ADHD Mountain Dew caffeinated jock friends and looking back on it I hope this affected my high school opinion of finding this film at all enjoyable, because this is a piece of trash. As Batgirl pointed out this is merely a series of things that would not happen if an asteroid was hurtling toward earth. First of all the idea that an asteroid coming toward earth could in fact be unnoticed by NASA would be laughed at by any college student who has taken an Intro to Astronomy course. The rag tag group of everyday heroes and giant capitalists who come together to save humanity comes across like something out of a CPAC wet dream. And every part of this story feels well trodden and almost a caricature of itself. Most of the actors were so wooden that they were out acted by the asteroid. And then of course there are the endless smash cuts, close ups, one liners, and sudo-physics that seem to be the basis of every Bay film that make the rest of the it pointless to watch. The saddest thing of all is the fact that this film has somehow managed to spawn a endless series of similar films since its release that are each in themselves somehow worse.
Genre - Apocalyptic Action - 1/10
Characters - 1/20
Mood, Theme, Ambiance 2/10
Inventiveness - 2/10
Film Quality - 0/10
Total 6/10
Tarantino just managed to squeak by Bay here with an average of 45 to Bay's 6.5. Whew that was a nail biter.
3/15/10
Round Four - Welles v Scott
Even at the beginning of this showdown, before having seen any of Orson Welles' movies, I knew that Tony Scott winning was a longshot. We even tried to use his best work and threw out our viewing of Enemy of the State because we didn't think it was a good enough example of Scott's ability. This was my first time seeing Citizen Kane, and even though the end twist had already been revealed to me, it was one of the most enjoyable movie watching experiences I've had. Good luck, Mr. Scott. You're going up against one of the masters.
Citizen Kane
As I said, one of the best times I've had watching a film. I had planned on watching this movie a few times before and have heard that there isn't much point, the film is basically long and boring, and the secret of the end isn't all that exciting. It's also interesting to watch a film that has been parodied and referenced in television and film culture for my entire life; it's like retroactive explanation of a thousand jokes happening in one fell swoop. Maybe I was so impressed by this film because I spent a lot of my childhood watching old black and white movies with my mom and the slow pace of the scenes and early technology weren't something to overcome for me. Actually, almost completely opposite to this reaction, I found myself blown away by the impressive and risky format of the movie story (starting a biopic with a fabricated news reel and then moving into flashbacks through interview without overlying narration) as well as the incredibly prophetic use of technology. Welles, who came from the realm of theater, broke into film direction with this masterpiece in a way that made plain his genius; the revolutionary uses of film exposure, set transitions, and sequences changed film forever. I couldn't believe that this was his first movie and I found myself yearning to have been alive at a time when I could have seen his acting on stage with nothing but distance and air between us. The story was engaging and brilliant, the characters complex and the acting graceful, and the breakthroughs in film technology evident and impressive. This has been one of the movies in this competition that makes the entire enterprise worth undertaking and has just blown me away.
True Romance
I had seen this movie before it showed up in our competition and enjoyed it very much. Despite the intense violence and apparently twisted messages about what love, commitment, and heroism entail, I had loved the bald nature of the characters, the apparent passion and devotion and the willingness for the film to display its own ridiculousness. I've decided that the way I like to interpret the movie is as a critique on Hollywood and the movie industry. In the course of the film, we see each character act out the scripts that have been supplied to them through pop culture (mainly movies). Our lead man kills someone for his new love, the devoted father provokes a mob boss to protect his son, the new wife allows herself to be beaten rather than betray her love, and all the tough guys (body guards, cops, and criminals) refuse to back down. In all of these situations, the easier, more logical option is completely ignored, even though the painful and often deadly results of these "ideal" acts of bravery and love end up doing nothing to prevent the force each character finds themselves up against from getting what they came for.
Touch of Evil
We watched the director's cut of this crime drama, and I can see that Orson Welles had an idea of what kind of message he wanted his movie to make. The story of crime which occurs between and crosses borders is one of corruption and sacrifice, and we see (a much larger) Welles as the main character once more: a cop near the end of his career who has found that treachery often works better than truth in the space between right and wrong, the border between doing what is right for the sake of right and creating a "just" outcome through unjust means. Charlton Heston was entirely distracting throughout the movie as the younger Mexican officer who still perceives the law as justice and has not yet been affected or poisoned by his position on the border. I'm certain they could have chosen from among the very competent Spanish-speaking actors instead of using the overtanned white dude with no attempt at an accent. One controversy that may have caused this choice in actor is the fact that Heston's character was married to a white woman in the film, and while she is bustled around during the conflict between the lawmen, it becomes clear that she has difficultly making sane decisions. Overall the film was interesting and worthwhile, even though at times the choices of the director and studio seemed questionable.
Crimson Tide
As far as submarine dramas go, this one isn't bad. I love Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman and they spark when they meet in this film as ideologically opposed naval officers managing the possible need for nuclear missile use when communication with command is impeded. The film is dramatic and action-filled, and we see the characters clash and disagree as powerful forces with convincing conviction. Viggo Mortensen is brilliant in a supporting role, but this film didn't really do anything new for me. It had suspense and action, politics and moral dilemmas, sweaty dudes and danger, but I found myself bored and disconnected. There are a huge amount of movies with all of these things to choose from, and this one didn't rock my boat at all.
So, I'm sure it's entirely evident (if simply based upon the two names being next to one another in a competition) that Orson Welles beat Tony Scott in this match. Good game, guys. Sorry we didn't get to see Man on Fire, Mr. Scott, it didn't rate as high as Crimson Tide on Rotten Tomatoes. And Mr. Welles, welcome to the ranks of tier two in our honorable director showdown!
Citizen Kane
As I said, one of the best times I've had watching a film. I had planned on watching this movie a few times before and have heard that there isn't much point, the film is basically long and boring, and the secret of the end isn't all that exciting. It's also interesting to watch a film that has been parodied and referenced in television and film culture for my entire life; it's like retroactive explanation of a thousand jokes happening in one fell swoop. Maybe I was so impressed by this film because I spent a lot of my childhood watching old black and white movies with my mom and the slow pace of the scenes and early technology weren't something to overcome for me. Actually, almost completely opposite to this reaction, I found myself blown away by the impressive and risky format of the movie story (starting a biopic with a fabricated news reel and then moving into flashbacks through interview without overlying narration) as well as the incredibly prophetic use of technology. Welles, who came from the realm of theater, broke into film direction with this masterpiece in a way that made plain his genius; the revolutionary uses of film exposure, set transitions, and sequences changed film forever. I couldn't believe that this was his first movie and I found myself yearning to have been alive at a time when I could have seen his acting on stage with nothing but distance and air between us. The story was engaging and brilliant, the characters complex and the acting graceful, and the breakthroughs in film technology evident and impressive. This has been one of the movies in this competition that makes the entire enterprise worth undertaking and has just blown me away.
True Romance
I had seen this movie before it showed up in our competition and enjoyed it very much. Despite the intense violence and apparently twisted messages about what love, commitment, and heroism entail, I had loved the bald nature of the characters, the apparent passion and devotion and the willingness for the film to display its own ridiculousness. I've decided that the way I like to interpret the movie is as a critique on Hollywood and the movie industry. In the course of the film, we see each character act out the scripts that have been supplied to them through pop culture (mainly movies). Our lead man kills someone for his new love, the devoted father provokes a mob boss to protect his son, the new wife allows herself to be beaten rather than betray her love, and all the tough guys (body guards, cops, and criminals) refuse to back down. In all of these situations, the easier, more logical option is completely ignored, even though the painful and often deadly results of these "ideal" acts of bravery and love end up doing nothing to prevent the force each character finds themselves up against from getting what they came for.
Touch of Evil
We watched the director's cut of this crime drama, and I can see that Orson Welles had an idea of what kind of message he wanted his movie to make. The story of crime which occurs between and crosses borders is one of corruption and sacrifice, and we see (a much larger) Welles as the main character once more: a cop near the end of his career who has found that treachery often works better than truth in the space between right and wrong, the border between doing what is right for the sake of right and creating a "just" outcome through unjust means. Charlton Heston was entirely distracting throughout the movie as the younger Mexican officer who still perceives the law as justice and has not yet been affected or poisoned by his position on the border. I'm certain they could have chosen from among the very competent Spanish-speaking actors instead of using the overtanned white dude with no attempt at an accent. One controversy that may have caused this choice in actor is the fact that Heston's character was married to a white woman in the film, and while she is bustled around during the conflict between the lawmen, it becomes clear that she has difficultly making sane decisions. Overall the film was interesting and worthwhile, even though at times the choices of the director and studio seemed questionable.
Crimson Tide
As far as submarine dramas go, this one isn't bad. I love Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman and they spark when they meet in this film as ideologically opposed naval officers managing the possible need for nuclear missile use when communication with command is impeded. The film is dramatic and action-filled, and we see the characters clash and disagree as powerful forces with convincing conviction. Viggo Mortensen is brilliant in a supporting role, but this film didn't really do anything new for me. It had suspense and action, politics and moral dilemmas, sweaty dudes and danger, but I found myself bored and disconnected. There are a huge amount of movies with all of these things to choose from, and this one didn't rock my boat at all.
So, I'm sure it's entirely evident (if simply based upon the two names being next to one another in a competition) that Orson Welles beat Tony Scott in this match. Good game, guys. Sorry we didn't get to see Man on Fire, Mr. Scott, it didn't rate as high as Crimson Tide on Rotten Tomatoes. And Mr. Welles, welcome to the ranks of tier two in our honorable director showdown!
3/3/10
Crimson Kane
Ok so it's been a while...I know. But the good news is that while we have not been writing reviews that does not mean that we have not been watching movies. So for a bit here we're gonna be playing a little catch up in the writing department.
So that begins with the first of our catch up installments of Orson Wells vs. Tony Scott. For Orson Wells we watched Citizen Kane and Touch of Evil. For Tony Scott True Romance and Crimson Tide.
Citizen Kane - Citizen Kane is nearly a perfect movie. It bridges the gap between two genres Film Noir and Biography and kicks ass the whole way through. To the modern eye stylistically the film looks cool and interesting using a ton of filming tricks not seen in many modern films. But if you spend just a few minutes looking up a few of the filming techniques invented by Wells for this film you will be blown away. The first transition from a model building to a live shot and double exposures on film so that foreground and background are in focus at the same time in the same shot just to name a few. The characters are amazing but few and mainly focus around the near perfect performance of Wells himself playing a larger than life version of William Randolf Hearst. Joesph Cotten puts in a great performance as his disillusioned colleague. The film feels epic in scale but intimate in nature. Telling the individual story of a single person but also the symbolic story of a generation that has long passed but still feels true today.
Genre - 10/10
Characters - 9/10
Mood, Theme, Ambiance - 10/10
Inventiveness - 10/10
Film Quality 10/10
Total - 49/50
True Romance - This is the sort of story that I am naturally not very into. It comes across as cool and hip but kinda ends up feeling kinda empty to me. But for the sake of the contest I gave it an honest try. You can just feel this movie is written by Quentin Tarrentino and while Scott definitely puts his own spin on it Tarrentino should have done the thing himself. The film to me has one too many illogical leaps that I can't get over. Firstly for the sake of the story your supposed to accept that "True Love" exists, which I normally find sloppy writing but can get over, although in this film apparently "true love" seems to be not much more than wanting to have sex with someone with whom you share a couple of mutual interests. But then they expect you to believe despite being newly in love and on the verge of a happy ending the characters are instead willing to put themselves in life threatening peril that can easily be avoided not once but over and over again. I understand that this film is playing off of standard movie tropes and in the end a statement is being made about the nature of films and the film making process (Hell half the characters work in films). But the storyline was too much for me.
Genre - Drama 6/10
Characters - 5/10
Mood, Theme, Ambiance - 6/10
Inventiveness - 6/10
Film Quality 6/10
Total - 29/50
A Touch of Evil - I have never seen a Wells movie other than Citizen Kane before so I had really high expectations for this and was a little let down. The story is a Crime Thriller exploring the nature of cops and gangsters on the border of Mexico and California. Wells explores the nature of cops being on the metaphorical border between lawful and unlawful society and shows you both what you consider initially to be a corrupt cop (Wells) and an honest one (Charlton Heston). In this film Heston plays an honest Mexican cop whose marrying a white American (Janet Leigh) and looks ridiculous doing it. They used some weird tanning makeup on him and Heston looks about as comfortable speaking Spanish as I do, which is not comfortable at all. They get wrapped up in a murder on their honeymoon that literally crosses the border when a bomb is placed in a car's trunk and the victim drives into America. The film plods along awkwardly from there making prophetic points about Wells and Heston's nature until the inevitable confrontation. Leigh's character is confounding and feels strangely comfortable in situations that would freak me the hell out. Like a scene where she is being held hostage by a Mexican biker gang in a rural hotel only to calmly fall asleep instead of lose her shit. The film nonetheless is shot well and Wells at the helm still manages to make what in the end is a pretty ridiculous plot interesting but misses the mark enough to make it disappointing.
Genre Crime - 7/10
Characters - 6/10
Mood Theme Ambiance 7/10
Inventiveness - 7/10
Film Quality - 7/10
Total - 34/50
Crimson Tide - In this film Scott is clearly attempting to have a conversation over how comfortable we are as a society with having the decision to fire nuclear weapons in the hands of a single individual. This is not really hidden in any way as the conversation is had literally throughout this film between the opposing forces of Lt. Hunter (Denzel Washington) a young, attractive, worldly, intellectual and Capt. Ramsey (Gene Hackman) a surly, crotchety, sea captain. These two are in odd couple like duo in charge of a nuclear submarine and inevitably end up in an ambiguous war scenario where the decision to fire or not to fire a nuclear bomb is left in their hands. I'm not sure if there is a segment of the population that would identify with the Hackman's character or if this film is designed to have the audience favor Washington but the point is made over and over again that neither is right or wrong but rather acting based on the information present and their respective world views. Which of course leads crotchety Hackman to feel they need to fire the nuc and intellectual Washington to feel they need to wait for clearer orders. Needless to say the plot is contrived and designed at every turn to push the characters even further into the abyss of decision based on gut instinct. For me though the idea that anyone based on this little information would consider firing a nuclear weapon makes me think that being intrigued by this film's plot should probably disqualify you from being in command of a nuclear submarine. I also kept wondering why the hell Scott kept having the characters pulling larger and larger guns on each other, I mean did nobody else notice that the film is set on a submarine and that firing the smallest pistol hundred of meters under water would probably be a bad idea. Not to mention the fact that there are nuclear bombs within shooting range. Then after the film is concluded Scott goes so far as to inform the audience in post script that entire contrived scenario can't even happen anymore as there have been changes in the chain of command with regards to nuclear weapons on submarines. Well thank god for that!
Genre - War Thriller 5/10
Characters - 5/10
Mood Ambience Theme - 6/10
Inventiveness 4/10
Film quality 5/10
Total 25/50
Well there you have it. Orsen Wells managed to pull it out with an 41.5 average to Scott's 26.5
So that begins with the first of our catch up installments of Orson Wells vs. Tony Scott. For Orson Wells we watched Citizen Kane and Touch of Evil. For Tony Scott True Romance and Crimson Tide.
Citizen Kane - Citizen Kane is nearly a perfect movie. It bridges the gap between two genres Film Noir and Biography and kicks ass the whole way through. To the modern eye stylistically the film looks cool and interesting using a ton of filming tricks not seen in many modern films. But if you spend just a few minutes looking up a few of the filming techniques invented by Wells for this film you will be blown away. The first transition from a model building to a live shot and double exposures on film so that foreground and background are in focus at the same time in the same shot just to name a few. The characters are amazing but few and mainly focus around the near perfect performance of Wells himself playing a larger than life version of William Randolf Hearst. Joesph Cotten puts in a great performance as his disillusioned colleague. The film feels epic in scale but intimate in nature. Telling the individual story of a single person but also the symbolic story of a generation that has long passed but still feels true today.
Genre - 10/10
Characters - 9/10
Mood, Theme, Ambiance - 10/10
Inventiveness - 10/10
Film Quality 10/10
Total - 49/50
True Romance - This is the sort of story that I am naturally not very into. It comes across as cool and hip but kinda ends up feeling kinda empty to me. But for the sake of the contest I gave it an honest try. You can just feel this movie is written by Quentin Tarrentino and while Scott definitely puts his own spin on it Tarrentino should have done the thing himself. The film to me has one too many illogical leaps that I can't get over. Firstly for the sake of the story your supposed to accept that "True Love" exists, which I normally find sloppy writing but can get over, although in this film apparently "true love" seems to be not much more than wanting to have sex with someone with whom you share a couple of mutual interests. But then they expect you to believe despite being newly in love and on the verge of a happy ending the characters are instead willing to put themselves in life threatening peril that can easily be avoided not once but over and over again. I understand that this film is playing off of standard movie tropes and in the end a statement is being made about the nature of films and the film making process (Hell half the characters work in films). But the storyline was too much for me.
Genre - Drama 6/10
Characters - 5/10
Mood, Theme, Ambiance - 6/10
Inventiveness - 6/10
Film Quality 6/10
Total - 29/50
A Touch of Evil - I have never seen a Wells movie other than Citizen Kane before so I had really high expectations for this and was a little let down. The story is a Crime Thriller exploring the nature of cops and gangsters on the border of Mexico and California. Wells explores the nature of cops being on the metaphorical border between lawful and unlawful society and shows you both what you consider initially to be a corrupt cop (Wells) and an honest one (Charlton Heston). In this film Heston plays an honest Mexican cop whose marrying a white American (Janet Leigh) and looks ridiculous doing it. They used some weird tanning makeup on him and Heston looks about as comfortable speaking Spanish as I do, which is not comfortable at all. They get wrapped up in a murder on their honeymoon that literally crosses the border when a bomb is placed in a car's trunk and the victim drives into America. The film plods along awkwardly from there making prophetic points about Wells and Heston's nature until the inevitable confrontation. Leigh's character is confounding and feels strangely comfortable in situations that would freak me the hell out. Like a scene where she is being held hostage by a Mexican biker gang in a rural hotel only to calmly fall asleep instead of lose her shit. The film nonetheless is shot well and Wells at the helm still manages to make what in the end is a pretty ridiculous plot interesting but misses the mark enough to make it disappointing.
Genre Crime - 7/10
Characters - 6/10
Mood Theme Ambiance 7/10
Inventiveness - 7/10
Film Quality - 7/10
Total - 34/50
Crimson Tide - In this film Scott is clearly attempting to have a conversation over how comfortable we are as a society with having the decision to fire nuclear weapons in the hands of a single individual. This is not really hidden in any way as the conversation is had literally throughout this film between the opposing forces of Lt. Hunter (Denzel Washington) a young, attractive, worldly, intellectual and Capt. Ramsey (Gene Hackman) a surly, crotchety, sea captain. These two are in odd couple like duo in charge of a nuclear submarine and inevitably end up in an ambiguous war scenario where the decision to fire or not to fire a nuclear bomb is left in their hands. I'm not sure if there is a segment of the population that would identify with the Hackman's character or if this film is designed to have the audience favor Washington but the point is made over and over again that neither is right or wrong but rather acting based on the information present and their respective world views. Which of course leads crotchety Hackman to feel they need to fire the nuc and intellectual Washington to feel they need to wait for clearer orders. Needless to say the plot is contrived and designed at every turn to push the characters even further into the abyss of decision based on gut instinct. For me though the idea that anyone based on this little information would consider firing a nuclear weapon makes me think that being intrigued by this film's plot should probably disqualify you from being in command of a nuclear submarine. I also kept wondering why the hell Scott kept having the characters pulling larger and larger guns on each other, I mean did nobody else notice that the film is set on a submarine and that firing the smallest pistol hundred of meters under water would probably be a bad idea. Not to mention the fact that there are nuclear bombs within shooting range. Then after the film is concluded Scott goes so far as to inform the audience in post script that entire contrived scenario can't even happen anymore as there have been changes in the chain of command with regards to nuclear weapons on submarines. Well thank god for that!
Genre - War Thriller 5/10
Characters - 5/10
Mood Ambience Theme - 6/10
Inventiveness 4/10
Film quality 5/10
Total 25/50
Well there you have it. Orsen Wells managed to pull it out with an 41.5 average to Scott's 26.5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)