Monday, October 13, 2008

Brian DePalma

I could (and at some point might) turn this blog into a prolonged examination of this body of work. In the interests of time, both my own and yours, I'm keeping it simple. For now. Even if I don't expand on these ratings in the short term, I will monitor the comments and make applicable explanations or clarifications as warranted. Longer reviews of the first and last film on this list are available by clicking on the links embedded in their respective titles.

**** (masterpiece)
HI, MOM! (1970) (buy)
THE FURY (1978) (buy)
BLOW OUT (1981) (buy)
CASUALTIES OF WAR (1989) (buy)
FEMME FATALE (2002) (buy)

*** (a must-see)
SISTERS (1973) (buy)
PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE (1974) (buy)
CARRIE (1976) (buy)
DRESSED TO KILL (1980) (buy)
CARLITO'S WAY (1993) (buy)
MISSION TO MARS (2000) (buy)

** (worth seeing)
GREETINGS (1968) (buy)
HOME MOVIES (1980) (buy)
THE UNTOUCHABLES (1987) (buy)
RAISING CAIN (1992) (buy)
MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE (1996) (buy)
SNAKE EYES (1998) (buy)

* (has redeeming facet)
OBSESSION (1976) (buy)
SCARFACE (1983) (buy)
BODY DOUBLE (1984) (buy)
THE BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES (1990) (buy)
THE BLACK DAHLIA (2006) (buy)
REDACTED (2007) (buy)

Labels: ,


Click here to read the full post with comments

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Redacted

REDACTED (Brian DePalma, 2007)
* (Has redeeming facet)

With the possible exception of the poorly remembered (poor both in terms of the specificity of my recollections and my recollections of its quality) WISE GUYS, I can't think of another film wherein DePalma thoroughly denied his own talents. By choosing to tell this story through the media lenses of non-filmmakers and less-talented filmmakers, DePalma drains REDACTED of any of the cinematic virtues typical to even his most middling films, seems satisfied with a mise-en-scene cribbed from undergraduate acting classes, and replaces his typically all-encompassing wit with angry, simple ironies.

All one is left with (beyond frustration) is the clarity that DePalma's anger is real (and not exploitative) but, in this neutered presentation, to no real effect. It's inexplicable that he appears to have mislaid the felicity with which he typically incorporates multiple points of view into his films without sublimating his gifts. It's as depressing to consider how much more of DePalma was in his work-for-hire on MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE or the immature and misguided OBSESSION than in this undeniably personal film as it is to consider how much more media attention attended the release of this, the worst film in 20+ years from America's greatest living filmmaker, than welcomed the release of his genuinely accomplished and moving diptych on life and art: MISSION TO MARS and FEMME FATALE. Skip REDACTED and watch one or both of those films again or for the first time.

Mentioned in this review...







Labels: , , , , ,


Click here to read the full post with comments

Monday, October 06, 2008

American Gangster

AMERICAN GANGSTER (Ridley Scott, 2007)
* (Has redeeming facet)

AMERICAN GANGSTER demonstrates the limits of competency. There's story enough to carry a film of this length (156 minutes) but Steven Zaillian's script pushes subtlety to the point of imprecision. Each member of the excellent cast is overqualified for their role. Neither Denzel Washington nor Russell Crowe gets to transform his character into a recognizable human being so the film's drama (such as it is) is neither procedural nor character-driven. I found myself ample time to consider the cost of securing period cars for the street scenes versus inserting the cars digitally in post-production.

Top supporting actors Josh Brolin (the dirty cop), Chiwetel Ejiofor (the kingpin's weak family member), Cuba Gooding, Jr. and Idris Elba (flashy pretenders to the throne) are especially stranded playing archetypes. The film would be incoherent without the tradition of American gangster films and after the stories of Michael Corleone, Ace Rothstein, and Avon Barksdale this film is exposed as an empty, lumbering vessel that leaves one trying to remember why Ridley Scott ever had a reputation for making visually interesting films.

Labels: , , , , , ,


Click here to read the full post with comments