Vertigo

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock

Written by: Alec Coppel, Samuel A. Taylor (screenplay); Pierre Boileau, Thomas Narcejac









My third stop on Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" list brings me to Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo.

I've written about it here before, but it absolutely bears discussing again.

Vertigo is a dense film - much more dense than it may appear on first or even second viewing. The bait-and-switch-and-bait-and-switch of the story can be very disorienting, focusing thought on the work to mainly the plot.

But there's so much beauty to this film that the analysis must go further. (And it has, much better than I could ever analyze, elsewhere and many times.) The movie keeps calling you back. Look closer. Try again.

The music is perfectly eerie at just the right moments. The notes move in circles up and down the scales, then repeating, which helps enhance the theme and the suspense.

The colors are striking and bold. No holding back here. They are used to draw your attention to (and simultaneously away from) what you are supposed to notice.

I feel weak trying to write about this movie. I've seen it so many times over the last twenty years that it's hard to isolate one part of it here or there, and each of those parts has so many layers that it could be dissected in its own right for an entire post.

(As an example, with spoilers: The first bell tower scene. She begs him not to go up into the church with her. How much of it is Madeline/Judy trying to save him from the trauma she knows is waiting for him if he tries to follow her? How much of it is her trying to manipulate him with reverse psychology? Does she really love him or is she just using him? Where does the acting end and her personality begin? It's worth thinking about.)

Superman II (The Richard Donner Cut)

Directed by: Richard Donner, Richard Lester

Written by: Mario Puzo (story and screenplay), David Newman (screenplay), Leslie Newman (screenplay)


There's a lot of history and controversy  regarding the multiple versions of "Superman II." The version I watched for this review is the "Richard Donner Cut," which more closely aligns with the original vision for the film. The original theatrical release had two directors due to some conflict between Donner (who directed the first movie) and the producers.

Overall, it's a pretty straight forward superhero flick. Very enjoyable. I've never seen the "theatrical" cut of the film, so I can't make a direct comparison.

I was surprised by the amount of emotional turmoil that Superman experiences in this film. He's torn between his love for Lois Lane and the powers he was given. This tension gives Superman a much deeper and more complex personality, often missing from most superhero stories.

The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (Extended Edition)

Directed by: Peter Jackson

Written by: J.R.R. Tolkien (book); Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens (screenplay)









When it comes to telling a massive story, adding up to over nine hours (or more) total, your payoff better be huge.  "Return of the King" pays off for all the waiting and wandering of the characters and the audience.

All of the pieces that were set in motion in the first movie (several, several hours ago in film time) move toward their final resolution.  This is no easy task, considering the long list of major and semi-major characters that have been built up.  The "extended edition" I watched had even more scenes added to the climax and resolution.

As a quick side note: the "Mouth of Sauron" scene that was included in this version of the film was exactly as I imagined it when I read the book.  I was originally disappointed that it did not make the final cut in the theatrical version, but is well worth watching if you can get a copy of this cut.

The biggest complain I've heard about this movie is about all the fake-out ending moments - scenes where it seems like everything is wrapped-up and done and the screen fades away, only to fade-in a few moments later with another scene.  I'll admit, these scenes were not handled as well as they could have been, made  more complicated by the seemingly-final transitions.  As a counter-point, I'd say that if you were willing to sit through the entire series up to this point, you should understand that the film or the series is not going to end with a simple fade-out.  It's an epic, and it needs resolution.  We've journeyed with these characters so far, we need to find out what happens to them all, or the story will remain incomplete.

On the whole, "Return of the King" had the grandest scale of the series, giving it a greater sense of "epic" than the previous two.  ("Fellowship" was more of a simple quest. "Two Towers" did not gain any real scale until the final battle sequence.)  The massive battle sequence will be tough to match in future fantasy films, and should rightly be the standard to which all others are compared.

This film, and the rest of the series, are well worth watching.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (Extended Edition)

Directed by: Peter Jackson

Written by: J.R.R. Tolkien (book); Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Stephen Sinclair (screenplay)









Being the second part of "The Lord of the Rings"...

When we left off, Frodo and Sam were headed off towards the dark land of Mordor while the rest of the fellowship had been battling orcs and heading to Gondor.  This film picks up almost exactly where the first part left off.

This nature of the story requires that the film follow two distinct stories: that of Frodo and Sam, and that of the rest of the group.  Although the balance is not perfect, the two stories alternate often enough to keep either story from slowing down the pace.

"The Two Towers" does not take great advantage of its sequel status to take on new ground.  Instead, it feels as if it begins and ends rather arbitrarily.  (Compared to, say, "The Empire Strikes Back," which takes advantage of previously established characters to trampoline into a more complex story.)

What does stand out about "The Two Towers" is the epic scene encompassing the battle of Helms Deep, which makes the entire movie worth watching from beginning to end.  The battles of the first movie were rather small in scale.  The Helms Deep sequence is large and loud and chaotic, as all great fantasy battles should be.

The only character who really grows or develops in this segment is Aragorn (Mortensen), and his arc is clear.  Most of the other folks are pretty static to the point of their development being nearly irrelevant.  This lack of development may be a part of why this movie does not stand out from the rest of the series.

You can't watch "The Two Towers" without seeing "The Fellowship of the Ring" first, or following it up with "The Return of the King."  It is more of an episode than a separate film.

I can't remember anything specific standing out in the "Extended Edition" which was not part of the original theatrical cut, so I'll refrain from commenting on anything like that.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Extended Edition)

Directed by: Peter Jackson

Written by: J.R.R. Tolkien (book); Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens (screenplay)









Being the first part of "The Lord of the Rings"...

Peter Jackson was ambitious enough to take on Tolkien's much-loved epic "The Lord of the Rings," and darned if he didn't get it right.  He was so ambitious, in fact, that he had to shorten the film for theatrical and release the "Extended Edition" later.

Middle-Earth comes to life in this first part of the trilogy.  We are quickly, but thoroughly, introduced to a brief history of the ring, and then set about on our journey.  The great design in the way Jackson presents "The Fellowship of the Ring" is that we are essentially bound to Frodo Baggins.  Both Frodo and the audience have little experience in the world of Middle-Earth, and so as he goes forth on his adventure, we go with him.  We learn and experience the world as he learns and experiences the world.  There are only a handful of scenes that do not center on Frodo.

For those looking for loyalty to the text of the book - word-for-word - you will not find it here.  But Jackson does a good job of axing out some of the unnecessary sequences, morphing some characters and sequences for cinematic effect, all while staying true to the spirit of Tolkien's book.  (My only regret is that Tom Bombadil never made an appearance, even as a passing reference, in any of the versions.)

There are a million summaries out on the internet, as well as the source book which, ideally, should always be read before viewing the film, so I will not waste your time with all that here.

I do want to make a quick comment on Howard Shore's amazing score.  After the casting (which I may touch on in a later post), I firmly believe that the background score is what made the film so memorable.  It is, when it needs to be, large and epic.  It is, when it needs to be, mysterious and dark.  It is, when it needs to be, folksy and simple.  The recurring musical motifs help to tie together this film to the others in the trilogy, while never stopping to become anthemic or cliche.

Lastly, the Blu-Ray transfer is pretty fantastic, and so I highly recommend it.

Rocky

Directed by: John G. Avildsen

Written by: Sylvester Stallone










I am a total sucker for this movie.  There, I've said it.  I love it, and it's one of my favorite movies.

Frankly, I don't feel that it's given enough credit.  Rather, it's often passed off as insincere or kitschy.  In fact, it's the opposite.

Sure, the ending is a bit corny in retrospect, but it's also completely unexpected (especially the first time you see it).  The film does a masterful job of bait-and-switch.  The climax of the film is Rocky's big fight against Apollo Creed (Weathers), but in the end the fight doesn't matter.  In fact, the result of the big match is revealed and pass-over so quickly as to be irrelevant.  That's because, amazingly, the last moment reveals that the movie wasn't about boxing at all (at least, not in the way most sports movies are designed).  Rather, boxing is a metaphor for the different parts of the characters' lives.  Sure, most sports movies use the sport as a metaphor, but it's hard to find one which reveals that metaphor so surprisingly.  ("Field of Dreams" might have used it just as effectively, but it's not a surprise the way it is in "Rocky."  "On the Waterfront" uses boxing as a metaphor at a key point, but the film itself is void of any actual boxing matches.)

I'd also like to ask this question: How many other movies capture low-class life so well?  There's no glitz or glamor to Rocky's life until the final fight.  Rather, he's a loser for most of the movie, and so are his friends.  Even his girlfriend Adrian (Shire) is crippled by her shyness and just a bit off-kilter.  Rocky doesn't live in a world where aspirations are big and dreams are bigger.  It's a world where people struggle to get along, and are easily sidetracked.

Rocky's scene where he tries to save a young teenage girl from developing a bad reputation shows us how complex things are in this world.  On the one hand, he's trying to offer her advice on how to better herself.  This advice is ultimately rejected, and Rocky's sincerity is twisted and misread.  But, at the same time Rocky is trying to tell this girl to live a better life, he himself is already a part of what he is trying to warn her about.  Although his dreams are tied to professional boxing, he actually makes a living acting as "muscle" for the local mafia.  Everything is a bit muddled and unclear.  Rocky prefers to keep things black and white, unaware that he lives in a world of gray.

I think "sincerity" is the key word in appreciating "Rocky."  You have to watch it in a sincere manner, putting aside any cynicism.  The actors are all sincere and straight in their performances.  (Yes, even Carl Weather's over-the-top job as Apollo Creed is just as honest as it is over-the-top.)  The characters in the film are sincere in their hopes and dreams and unfortunate realities.  Ultimately, the message of the film is sincere in what it tries to show us about ourselves.

Superman: The Movie

Directed by:  Richard Donner

Written by: Mario Puzo (story and screenplay); David Newman, Leslie Newman, Robert Benton (screenplay)

Superman created by: Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster







Who doesn't love a good superhero movie?  And what better superhero to put in a film than the ultimate American comic-culture symbol of "Superman?"  Let's face it: Superman rocks, and Richard Donner's film, though imperfect, ushered in a new era for superheroes.

I hadn't seen "Superman" since I was a kid, but I've been going through a comic book kick lately, and when I saw the Blu-Ray for sale, I grabbed it.

A bit of background: After about a ten year hiatus, I'm starting to read comic books again.  Growing up, I was never a huge Superman fan.  It was hard to get behind a hero who could do anything, save anyone, and never made a mistake.  Superman never felt like he was accessible.  I much preferred some of the more imperfect heroes, whose lives and adventures were a little more relatable (though never quite realistic).  Getting back into comics now, I've been surprised that I'm able to appreciate Superman much more.  Though he's still "perfect," I'm better able to understand his character's complexity, and how he struggles to navigate the gray areas in a world where things are never as black-and-white as he'd want.

All that to say: I was jazzed to re-watch "Superman" and see what I had missed.

I was surprised at how much of the movie is devoted to Superman's back-story, both his pre-Earth history as the last son of Krypton and his childhood as the adopted child of the Kent family.  It's a significant chunk of the movie before he begins to fly, and even longer before he sheds his Clark Kent (Reeve) shell and reveals himself to Metropolis.  His past is laid out in very particular detail, lest anything get past the audience.

These details, though well-intentioned, are what hold the movie up at several points.  It's a long time before we meet Superman's chief antagonist Lex Luthor (Hackman), and even longer before Luthor's plans begin to unfold.  A lot of background is given to establish the character of Lois Lane (Kidder), and her brashness is hammered home several times more than necessary.

But it's all worth it when Superman finally saves the day for the first of many times.  I mean, come on, he flies through the air!  Has X-ray vision!  Ice cold breath!

(And, just an FYI, there are some big spoilers ahead, though I'm betting you could have figured out the ending on your own.)  Luthor manages to put Superman in quite a spot, forcing Superman to choose between saving two coasts at once.  It seems impossible!  In fact, it is impossible, and - gasp - Lois Lane dies before Superman could get to her.  But, this is a Superman story, and Superman always overcomes evil, and so, despite the voice-over warnings of his father (Brando), he manages to turn back time and re-write history just enough so that he can save Lois.

And therein lies why Superman is both amazing, and hard to take.  How can you not love a superhero who, in order to save one person, would change the rotation of the entire planet?  Yet, at the same time, how can you feel any tension or drama when you know that Superman, if he wants, can just reverse time?

There's a lot of religious (specifically Christian) symbolism thrown into this movie as well.  None of it is subtle, and some of it is so blatant as to be obnoxious, such as Brando's narration when Superman discovers his family history.

In any case, "Superman" does a good job of bringing the Superman mythology to the film medium.  Just be prepared.  Superman wins.  Superman always wins.  That's what makes him Superman.

And that's why this movie is pretty darned good.

X-Men: First Class - Revisited

Every once in a while, I'll watch a movie again.  (Shocking, I know.)  I've created a little "Revisited" label to use for occasions like this when, after a second viewing, I have something to add to my previous comments.

First up on my "Revisited" trek: "X-Men: First Class"

What struck me most about "X-Men: First Class" this time around was the way the whole film seemed to feel like a comic book.

Obviously (and I mentioned it last time), the montage sequence used several film panels, which  provided a comic book effect.

The staging and framing of several scenes mimicked the way it might have played out in a comic.  One scene that stands out for me that fits this motif is early in the film, when Xavier is flirting with the college girl at the bar.  I could almost see his lines in a dialogue bubble above his head.  When Raven interrupts him, her entrance into the scene was perfectly framed for a comic book panel.

Another key sequence which shot-for-shot felt more like a comic book panel was the climax, when Magneto kills Shaw.  The way the camera panned from left to right (like someone reading), following the coin through Shaw's skull while also cutting to shots of Xavier panning at the same speed - awesome!

The movie did have a lot of fluff.  Too many characters were developed, only to be killed off or pushed into the background.  The movie was paced out with enough action and plot development to keep it from feeling too long (which it was, to an extent).

Here's to hoping, like Christopher Nolan's "Batman Begins," that "X-Men: First Class" is merely the beginning of an epic series.