Well that title sounds kinda dirty. In our 6th round we have the match up of George Hill and Sydney Pollack. For George Hill we have Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and for Pollack we have Out of Africa and Tootsie. Needless to say based on these films this is no Tarrantino vs. Michael Bay. In fact this has easily been the hardest round we've had so far. Both of these guys are top notch and produced two great and I mean great films.
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid - This was the first of the two great Hill, Redford, Newman match-ups and it is near pitch perfect. It's the story of two of the wild west's greatest outlaws and their struggle against a society that tries to get them to play by their rules. Early on you can see a clear connection between the outlaws and the 1960's culture that this film was born out of. The allegory is almost palpable. Newman and Redford are perfect as a duo with Newman playing the funnier easy going quick talker and Redford playing his strong silent straight man. The two quickly get into a showdown with the railroad's richest financier J.P. Morgan who takes a personal affront to their train robbing and sends the world's greatest collection of law men after them. This leads to one of the best chase sequences in any film I have ever seen and soon it becomes obvious that for Newman and Redford there is no escape. This is probably the strongest sequences of the film: two perfectly played characters running from situation to situation getting more and more desperate and Newman always being able to diffuse the tension with a hilarious line. The tension only breaks after the pair make a desperate plunge off a cliff and then run off to Argentina. They bring with them the love story of the film and we get introduced to one of the most clever and complex love triangles I have seen in any movie. The end sneaks up on you but makes perfect sense and the actual ending is one of the most shocking and violent I have seen so far in the contest. The one last thing I want to mention about this film is the music, which was amazing and brought each scene up to a new level that was near perfect and I doubt some of the longer sequences would have been as effective without it.
Genre - Western 9/10
Characters - 7/10
Mood, Theme, Ambiance - 8/10
Inventiveness - 9/10
Film Quality - 9/10
Total: 42/50
Tootsie - This was the only film that I hadn't seen prior to this round beginning and I certainly enjoyed it. It's a comedy starring Dustin Hoffman as an out of work actor trying to find work wherever he can get it. Through a turn of events he manages to get a part on a soap opera after he dresses like a woman to prove a point to his agent. This sets off a series of events that leads to Hoffman being stuck in a ridiculous love pentagram. The entire films works as a way for Hoffman who is a bit of a stereotypical womanizer to remove himself from his normal treatments of women and allows him to connect with a more equal feminist approach to relationships. This is seen most clearly in the men who become interested in Hoffman when he's dressed as Tootsie. The first is the Director of the soap opera Ron Carlisel (Dabney Coleman) who treats women very similarly to Hoffman himself mainly as sex objects spurred on by his position of power over them this treatment becomes bad enough that his girlfriend and love interest of Hoffman in the movie (Jessica Lang) eventually is driven to near alcoholism. Then there is the completely oblivious John Van Dorn (George Gaynes) who can't seem to notice how woman are simply not interested in his advances and leads him to near rape. The final of the trio is the love interest's father Les Nichols (Charles Durning) who is old fashioned and sees woman mainly as complementary to the male role this leads him to propose to Tootsie after their first date. These three experiences lead Hoffman to see the error of his ways and makes him a better man. Needless to say the plot is nearly perfect and hilarious at times. But the overall message of the film is a bit lacking when the more feminist messages get lost is Hoffman's change. A few of the characters and more serious situations are in the end dealt with by one liners and laugh situations which when dealing with topics like rape doesn't really work.
Genre - Comedy 8/10
Characters 8/10
Mood Theme Ambiance 6/10
Inventiveness 7/10
Film Quality 8/10
Total: 37/50
The Sting - The sting is a fantastic movie. A period gangster piece set in 1930's Chicago that reunites Hill, Newman, and Redford. While similar in style and quality this film is far more light hearted then Sundance Kid. Redford and Newman unite to play a big scam on a notorious mob boss who rules all of Chicago after a good friend of theirs is slain. But their adversary is overbearing and murderous and the two need to find a way to escape with their lives. The plot similar to Tootsie is near flawless with each moment finely crafted. The mood and ambiance of the film while for the most part superficial does say a bit about the nature of good and evil and friendship under pressure. The music manages to be even better than Sundance which I didn't think possible and manages to push the film along through the slower sequences and tie together the quicker moving parts. There is not much else to say about the Sting. Every part is well crafted and the plot while self contained manages to hide the twists from the audience in a near perfect way that never feels dishonest. You feel in on the whole thing from the beginning only to learn that the director is effortlessly ahead of you at every point. This film basically becomes the blue print for every plot driven thriller that follows it.
Genre - Crime Thriller 8/10
Characters - 8/10
Mood Ambiance Theme - 7/10
Inventiveness - 8/10
Film Quality - 8/10
Total - 39/50
Out of Africa - This is the most epic of epic romances. Meryl Streep plays a Danish baroness whose heart has been broken by a heartless lover in Denmark so she decides to marry his friendly brother and run away with him to Africa to start new life. There are not enough words in the English language to describe the beauty of Africa and Pollack uses every gorgeous location to its fullest advantage. Streep is near perfect in for what will for me become the measuring stick for every other film she is in. The film trails her perspective and just as Africa feels dangerous, beautiful, and erotic the audience feels each moment emanating from her. Her counterpart in the film is Robert Redford who plays the only man who can match wits with Streep's character and she falls madly in love with him. The only problem is that Redford refuses to be held by any woman. The harder she tries the further it drives him away. Each character is played accurately and neither is given an advantage in the audience's perspective. The inevitable confrontation comes when the rest of Streep's life begins to fall apart and we she that she is looking for someone to lean on unfortunately for her Redford will not be that man. After their break up her life spirals further out of control and eventually she must leave Africa. The end is sad as most romances end up being but perfectly toned and unexpected. The story plays upon the interesting topic of possession and Africa as the perfect garden of Eden landscape that all the countries of Europe fight war after war to control . Streep can't keep Redford and have him remain what he is meant to be just as Africa can't be conquered and remain what enticed so many to come to Africa.
Genre -Epic Romance 9/10
Characters - 9/10
Mood Ambiance Theme - 9/10
Inventiveness - 8/10
Film Quality - 9/10
Total: 44/50
So that brings an average score of for 40.5 Hill and an average of for 40.5 Pollack. Well shit now I've got to figure out how to handle a fucking tie.
4/1/10
Reservoiarmageddon
Round five presents to us a David and Goliath type confrontation, but I don't think that the special effects Bay has in his slingshot are going to knock down Tarantino. I'm going to try and go through this quickly, Trojan Horse already did a thorough job of criticizing Michael Bay.
The Rock
I've seen this movie so many times and never really considered it's quality. I don't go see Michael Bay movies to get high intellect, but just for a fun action flick. The movie stops being fun once you start to notice Nick Cage's terrible acting (ugh, most annoying voice ever), the incredibly contrived and ridiculous plot devices, and the over-the-top dramatic scenes and screen-shots. The car chase sequence reminded me of a level in Burnout (the aim of that game is to cause as much monetary damage as possible with a car crash). The nostalgia factor of this movie was high, but other than laughing at a few lines, I didn't enjoy it when I paid too much attention.
Reservoir Dogs
When I saw this movie the first time I was overwhelmed by the violence. Watching it closely, the violence still shocked me, but I noticed more of the fascinating aspects of the dialogue and length of non-violent scenes. Tarantino is adept at creating interesting characters and then allowing them the space to talk, and the choice of actors was fantastic as well.
Armageddon
I realized when closely watching this film that it is simply a series of overly dramatized versions of what WOULD NOT HAPPEN if a meteor were headed towards Earth. This movie did nothing original and interesting for me, and again, I'd watched it a lot when I was younger and it first came out. I used to love this movie, a child drunk on over-saturated film and knee-jerk trained emotional reactions to trite images. I've realized that this movie was a very preemptive campaign advertisement for George W. Bush. That is all.
Pulp Fiction
I have loved this movie since I first saw it at the likely inappropriate age of 12 (or maybe 11, I'm not sure). The changed sequence of events captivated me, the characters enchanted me, and the entire movie gave me striking images that wouldn't leave me. The red marker on skin, the gold light shining from the case, the intensity of Samuel L's eyes, and the cab driver's lips when she said "Butch." It's still engaging for me after multiple viewings and growth in maturity.
Michael Bay produces BIG FUCKING MOVIES. But he hides the lack of substance and novelty with special effects. And like so much makeup, it begins to rub off and reveal the plain skin underneath and we discover we were looking at someone trying to be someone else. I'm interested to see how Quentin Tarantino will hold up against John Huston in the next round. Thanks for playing, Bay. Better luck next time.
The Rock
I've seen this movie so many times and never really considered it's quality. I don't go see Michael Bay movies to get high intellect, but just for a fun action flick. The movie stops being fun once you start to notice Nick Cage's terrible acting (ugh, most annoying voice ever), the incredibly contrived and ridiculous plot devices, and the over-the-top dramatic scenes and screen-shots. The car chase sequence reminded me of a level in Burnout (the aim of that game is to cause as much monetary damage as possible with a car crash). The nostalgia factor of this movie was high, but other than laughing at a few lines, I didn't enjoy it when I paid too much attention.
Reservoir Dogs
When I saw this movie the first time I was overwhelmed by the violence. Watching it closely, the violence still shocked me, but I noticed more of the fascinating aspects of the dialogue and length of non-violent scenes. Tarantino is adept at creating interesting characters and then allowing them the space to talk, and the choice of actors was fantastic as well.
Armageddon
I realized when closely watching this film that it is simply a series of overly dramatized versions of what WOULD NOT HAPPEN if a meteor were headed towards Earth. This movie did nothing original and interesting for me, and again, I'd watched it a lot when I was younger and it first came out. I used to love this movie, a child drunk on over-saturated film and knee-jerk trained emotional reactions to trite images. I've realized that this movie was a very preemptive campaign advertisement for George W. Bush. That is all.
Pulp Fiction
I have loved this movie since I first saw it at the likely inappropriate age of 12 (or maybe 11, I'm not sure). The changed sequence of events captivated me, the characters enchanted me, and the entire movie gave me striking images that wouldn't leave me. The red marker on skin, the gold light shining from the case, the intensity of Samuel L's eyes, and the cab driver's lips when she said "Butch." It's still engaging for me after multiple viewings and growth in maturity.
Michael Bay produces BIG FUCKING MOVIES. But he hides the lack of substance and novelty with special effects. And like so much makeup, it begins to rub off and reveal the plain skin underneath and we discover we were looking at someone trying to be someone else. I'm interested to see how Quentin Tarantino will hold up against John Huston in the next round. Thanks for playing, Bay. Better luck next time.
3/15/10
3 Buschemis and a Connery
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.
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.
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
11/25/09
Round Three (Week 11)
Since completing the first round in this challenge, we have watched 8 more films in the past 11 weeks. Just goes to show how much time this process is taking and how busy we both are.
Traffic
This film by Steven Soderbergh was very impressive. I had seen parts of it before (or the whole movie without remembering all of it) and love the various ways that Soderbergh uses to convey changes and differences between the characters' worlds. In the interweaving of lives affected by drug trafficking, Soderbergh creates a fabric close to reality. The performances were spectacular, and only a few times did I notice a character giving a speech about the issue at hand (**cough** Topher Grace **cough**) as though serving as a megaphone for the director or writer. Overall, it was an amazing, valuable film.
Hard Boiled
This was my very first Chinese action film. Apparently John Woo made Chow Yun-Fat famous through this and many other action films. The introduction was excellent, with a huge build-up to an undercover operation to thwart an illegal guns trade. The action and violence was baffling, and way ahead of its time. I noticed where many recent American action films gained inspiration in the flying through the air shootouts and selective slow motion. The primary relationship in the film between a rough cop (Yun-Fat) and a deep undercover cop (Tony Leung Chiu-Wai) was complex and interesting, and I was invested in the character and the story. Considering the relative culture gap, this was a notable accomplishment on the part of the film, and I can definitely understand why John Woo made our list.
Erin Brockovich
I have seen this movie over and over again throughout my young adult life. I have always loved it and to me, it is Julia Roberts most complete and impressive acting job of her career. She is on the edge of categories for me in terms of whether she is more of a character actor or a flexible, versatile actor. Watching this movie again made me believe in her range, and the telling of this story happens so beautifully. I tried to watch this time with a critical eye and even so I was wrapped up in the humanity of this movie, loving the characters and the real people that they represent.
Once a Thief [**SPOILER ALERT**]
This action-comedy by John Woo came out a year before Hard Boiled. In this film the culture gap was more apparent for me, maybe because of the comedy aspect. I didn't understand why the characters did half of what they did, and the strange relationship turns and quick changes in emotion (not to mention the crazy-huge gun battles) made me confused for much of the film. Three orphans (two boys and a girl) who were raised by a thief grow up to become thieves, one of the men now dating the woman (his sister?). When he apparently dies, the other man (who has always been in love with her) begins seeing her, and when the other man comes back from the dead in a wheelchair (which in a climactic battle he leaps from after being shot in his paralyzed legs to reveal he actually WASN'T paralyzed) he shifts between moody glaring at them and bouncy, cheerful proclamations of his broken heart. In the end, they travel the world together and the couple gets married. The permanent third wheel "watches" their baby and does housework in a comical ending where he THROWS THE BABY. It just threw me for a loop, but was a funny, interesting movie to watch.
The winner is Steven Soderbergh! Whether it is due to my more solid connection to the culture in which his films exist or my continued awe for Erin Brockovich, his movies were more fluid, complete, and understandable. I would love to see Woo's later work, but probably won't have time as we still have 180 movies left to watch FOR THIS OUTER BRACKET.
TrafficThis film by Steven Soderbergh was very impressive. I had seen parts of it before (or the whole movie without remembering all of it) and love the various ways that Soderbergh uses to convey changes and differences between the characters' worlds. In the interweaving of lives affected by drug trafficking, Soderbergh creates a fabric close to reality. The performances were spectacular, and only a few times did I notice a character giving a speech about the issue at hand (**cough** Topher Grace **cough**) as though serving as a megaphone for the director or writer. Overall, it was an amazing, valuable film.
Hard Boiled
This was my very first Chinese action film. Apparently John Woo made Chow Yun-Fat famous through this and many other action films. The introduction was excellent, with a huge build-up to an undercover operation to thwart an illegal guns trade. The action and violence was baffling, and way ahead of its time. I noticed where many recent American action films gained inspiration in the flying through the air shootouts and selective slow motion. The primary relationship in the film between a rough cop (Yun-Fat) and a deep undercover cop (Tony Leung Chiu-Wai) was complex and interesting, and I was invested in the character and the story. Considering the relative culture gap, this was a notable accomplishment on the part of the film, and I can definitely understand why John Woo made our list.
Erin Brockovich
I have seen this movie over and over again throughout my young adult life. I have always loved it and to me, it is Julia Roberts most complete and impressive acting job of her career. She is on the edge of categories for me in terms of whether she is more of a character actor or a flexible, versatile actor. Watching this movie again made me believe in her range, and the telling of this story happens so beautifully. I tried to watch this time with a critical eye and even so I was wrapped up in the humanity of this movie, loving the characters and the real people that they represent.
Once a Thief [**SPOILER ALERT**]
This action-comedy by John Woo came out a year before Hard Boiled. In this film the culture gap was more apparent for me, maybe because of the comedy aspect. I didn't understand why the characters did half of what they did, and the strange relationship turns and quick changes in emotion (not to mention the crazy-huge gun battles) made me confused for much of the film. Three orphans (two boys and a girl) who were raised by a thief grow up to become thieves, one of the men now dating the woman (his sister?). When he apparently dies, the other man (who has always been in love with her) begins seeing her, and when the other man comes back from the dead in a wheelchair (which in a climactic battle he leaps from after being shot in his paralyzed legs to reveal he actually WASN'T paralyzed) he shifts between moody glaring at them and bouncy, cheerful proclamations of his broken heart. In the end, they travel the world together and the couple gets married. The permanent third wheel "watches" their baby and does housework in a comical ending where he THROWS THE BABY. It just threw me for a loop, but was a funny, interesting movie to watch.
The winner is Steven Soderbergh! Whether it is due to my more solid connection to the culture in which his films exist or my continued awe for Erin Brockovich, his movies were more fluid, complete, and understandable. I would love to see Woo's later work, but probably won't have time as we still have 180 movies left to watch FOR THIS OUTER BRACKET.
Hard Brockovich
Our third contest had Steven Soderbergh (known for passionate complicated dramas) vs. John Woo (famous for his Hong Kong action films). For Soderbergh we watched Erin Brockovich and Traffic and for John Woo we had some trouble finding his top works on Netflicks. Ideally we would have watched some from the For A Better Tomorrow series but instead we watched Hard Boiled and To Catch a Theif.
Traffic - 40/50
Genre- Ensemble Drama 9/10 The fact that Soderbergh is able to weave together so many plots and performances in which the actors don't interacte in many scenes is pretty amazing.
Characters- 8/10 Catherine Zeta Jones as the house wife married to a murderous drug dealer, and Benicio Del Torro as a Mexican law officer stand out amoungst many.
Mood, Theme, Ambience- 7/10 Confusion and fear on all sides eventually gives way to a calming peace.
Invetivness- 8/10 - One of the first films to use the color tinting that is so popular in films today. The way they use yellow tinting to highten the opressive heat in Mexico is very effective.
Film Quality- 8/10 The many sided picture of the drug trade in America works well from all angles.
Hard Boiled - 30/50
Genre - Action 6/10 extreemly violent for an action film and while inventive tends to drag in some of the less interesting action scenes.
Characters- 6/10 some of the most interesting work is done by the characters with less screen time. Such as the honorable villian who won't kill innocents.
Mood, Theme, Ambience - 4/10 Pretty much everything is blatently explained on screen in violent blood rippig detail. Some interesting work done in the realm of what makes a cop and villian.
Inventiveness - 8/10 This is where Woo does his best work. The long continuous action sequence that goes into and out of an elevtaor in one shot. The scene where the two opponents in the hospital end up on opposite sides of a group patients in a hospital.
Film Quality - 6/10 Too needlessly violent and obvious with the plot lines but pretty inventive in the action sequences and some of the characters.
Erin Brockovich - 38/50
Genre- Courtroom Drama - 8/10 This film changed the way the courtroom drama is done without ever being in a courtroom.
Characters - 8/10 fresh bold characters all over but lead clearly by Julia Roberts in the lead role of the woman who won't take no for an answer.
Mood, Ambience, Theme - 7/10 Stories of a woman in a man's world had been pretty typical by the late 90's but the way in which this film exploits stereotypes felt fresh and honest the entire way through.
Inventiveness - 7/10 The story felt a little too classic to truely feel inventive but the ways in which the plot twists and turns in unexpected ways without feeling unrealistic was pretty well done.
Film Quality- 8/10Classic story, pitch perfect script, and characters that by the end you were nearly cheering for.
To Catch a Thief- 30/50
Genre - Action Comedy 6/10 Action scenes too unrealistic and some of the Comedy too slapstick.
Characters- 5/10 Chow Young Fat showed range into comedy that I had never seen before in a cast that otherwise didn't stand out.
Mood Ambience Theme - 5/10 Introspection into what it was too be a friend/family and to be in love as well as the duality in most people between right and wrong. Pretty much what you would expect.
Inventivness - 8/10 Again Woo's best stuff is in the action sequences. You see things here such as the dance around red alarm wires and halting above the floor best sceen in Mission Impossible later.
Film Quality- 6/10 Some interesting stuff in the action sequences the comedy was only so-so maybe it didn't translate well.
Traffic - 40/50
Genre- Ensemble Drama 9/10 The fact that Soderbergh is able to weave together so many plots and performances in which the actors don't interacte in many scenes is pretty amazing.
Characters- 8/10 Catherine Zeta Jones as the house wife married to a murderous drug dealer, and Benicio Del Torro as a Mexican law officer stand out amoungst many.
Mood, Theme, Ambience- 7/10 Confusion and fear on all sides eventually gives way to a calming peace.
Invetivness- 8/10 - One of the first films to use the color tinting that is so popular in films today. The way they use yellow tinting to highten the opressive heat in Mexico is very effective.
Film Quality- 8/10 The many sided picture of the drug trade in America works well from all angles.
Hard Boiled - 30/50
Genre - Action 6/10 extreemly violent for an action film and while inventive tends to drag in some of the less interesting action scenes.
Characters- 6/10 some of the most interesting work is done by the characters with less screen time. Such as the honorable villian who won't kill innocents.
Mood, Theme, Ambience - 4/10 Pretty much everything is blatently explained on screen in violent blood rippig detail. Some interesting work done in the realm of what makes a cop and villian.
Inventiveness - 8/10 This is where Woo does his best work. The long continuous action sequence that goes into and out of an elevtaor in one shot. The scene where the two opponents in the hospital end up on opposite sides of a group patients in a hospital.
Film Quality - 6/10 Too needlessly violent and obvious with the plot lines but pretty inventive in the action sequences and some of the characters.
Erin Brockovich - 38/50
Genre- Courtroom Drama - 8/10 This film changed the way the courtroom drama is done without ever being in a courtroom.
Characters - 8/10 fresh bold characters all over but lead clearly by Julia Roberts in the lead role of the woman who won't take no for an answer.
Mood, Ambience, Theme - 7/10 Stories of a woman in a man's world had been pretty typical by the late 90's but the way in which this film exploits stereotypes felt fresh and honest the entire way through.
Inventiveness - 7/10 The story felt a little too classic to truely feel inventive but the ways in which the plot twists and turns in unexpected ways without feeling unrealistic was pretty well done.
Film Quality- 8/10Classic story, pitch perfect script, and characters that by the end you were nearly cheering for.
To Catch a Thief- 30/50
Genre - Action Comedy 6/10 Action scenes too unrealistic and some of the Comedy too slapstick.
Characters- 5/10 Chow Young Fat showed range into comedy that I had never seen before in a cast that otherwise didn't stand out.
Mood Ambience Theme - 5/10 Introspection into what it was too be a friend/family and to be in love as well as the duality in most people between right and wrong. Pretty much what you would expect.
Inventivness - 8/10 Again Woo's best stuff is in the action sequences. You see things here such as the dance around red alarm wires and halting above the floor best sceen in Mission Impossible later.
Film Quality- 6/10 Some interesting stuff in the action sequences the comedy was only so-so maybe it didn't translate well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)