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