pullquote

TV on the silver screen

For the second time in a month, the cinetrix has been watching television at the movies. Seriously, what is it with directors putting movies glimpsed on television into their films? First, Hotel Chevalier nods at Wilder's Stalag 17, then Control diverts for a moment into Herzog territory with a bit of Strozsek on the telly.

What does it all mean? Does anyone have a grand unified theory about this? Or, barring that, want to share an example of your most/least favorite instance of this kind of stunt?

On the town

The cinetrix got a shore leave* for the weekend and is heading to parts Manhattan and Brooklyn. If you would like to drink a beverage, ingest piquant foodstuffs, or take in flickering images in the dark with her, please indicate as much in the comments.

The cinetrix is also available to admire babies.

Hope to see you.

 

*By which she means family wedding. But it's on Friday night and I don't leave 'til Sunday.

Reprobates, Relatives, and Replicants

This week, it's the Three Faces of Ed Koch. First, the consumer advocate:

Gone Baby Gone
The lead actor in this film is Casey Affleck, brother of Ben Affleck who directed the picture.

The plot is complicated, with several stories being told at the same time. A private detective, Patrick Kenzie (Casey Affleck), and his lover/partner, Angie Gennaro (Michelle Monaghan), are investigating the disappearance of a four-year old girl.  The detectives were hired by the child's aunt, Bea McCready (Amy Madigan), and her husband, Lionel (Titus Welliver), who were unhappy with the police investigation led by Jack Doyle (Morgan Freeman). The child's mother, Helene (Amy Ryan), is a drug addict and her sister, Bea, blames her for the child's kidnapping. The film, which is occasionally scary and bloody, also involves a philosophical issue over which Patrick is conflicted.

Casey Affleck can handle a wide range of emotions and is a better actor than his brother, but Ben did a fine job in his debut as a director. He grew up in Boston and his use of its environs in Gone Baby Gone adds to the picture’s intrigue. The accents of the principal and minor characters ring true and the performances of each of them is excellent. Although there are a number of unnecessary twists to the plot before everything is fully understood, the movie is gripping and held my attention from beginning to end. All in all you get your money's worth.

Did you every think you would be paying $11 00 for a single admission ticket, $4.50 for a large cola and about the same for a bag of popcorn? Doubling those costs for two people and adding on the price of a baby sitter, a couple could have a very nice dinner in a modest Manhattan restaurant. You choose your restaurant, but let me choose your films.

Next, Ed shows some Lumet love, while HS gets Biblical:

Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead
This gem of a movie could only have been improved upon and earned the title of best film noir ever if it had been in black and white instead of color, if it had taken place in Paris instead of New York City, and if French with English subtitles had been used. For sure, parts of the film are implausible, but who cares. The plot is near perfect and so is the acting of the entire cast.

The story concerns two brothers. The older brother, Andy (Philip Seymour Hoffman), is successful career wise, but he is unhappily married and a cocaine addict. He regularly visits a luxurious apartment managed by a male character dressed in a kimono who injects drugs into the arms of his patrons. The younger brother, Hank (Ethan Hawke), is having an affair with Andy's wife, Gina (Marisa Tomei), and he cannot afford the alimony payments due to his ex-wife (Amy Ryan) and his daughter.

The beloved mother of Hank & Andy is Nanette (Rosemary Harris) and their disapproving and uninvolved father is Charles (Albert Finney). A caper is planned to provide the money desperately needed by the brothers which requires the presence of a hood, Bobby (Brian F. O’Byrne). The caper is a monumental failure, and Bobby's brother-in-law, Chris (Aleksa Palladino) demands satisfaction in the form of seeking to extort Hank. I'm being very careful in my description of the plot and action so as not to spoil a single moment of suspense for you. You will enjoy each element of the plot as it unfolds before you. The film is directed by Sidney Lumet, and I believe it will be perceived by the public as one of his best creations.

HS, who saw the film with me, says: This movie has an absurd title and an unbelievable plot.  Nonetheless, it is beautifully done and a pleasure to watch. It is like movies used to be: You tend to be absorbed, not terrified and not browbeaten. However, the film does have a message.  It is the Fifth Commandment:  "Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long on the land."

Finally, Koch checks Deckard:

Blade Runner
I had never seen this 1982 film which is now playing at the Landmark's Sunshine Cinema. Other than it being a classic sci-fi movie, I didn't know much about it and honestly thought the term blade runner might have something to do with skating.

The location is Los Angeles and the year is 2020. Creatures have been created that are far better equipped than robots and are much smarter and stronger than the humans that made them. Some of these creatures have turned on their creators and escaped. Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a blade runner, is charged with locating and eliminating the escapees. The plot primarily concerns his fight with one of the machines.

Blade Runner is one of the most forgettable movies I have ever seen, notwithstanding the fact that there are long lines waiting to enter the theater where it has been playing for several weeks. Stay away. It's dreck.

Faux-teur update

Never before has a post prompted so many offline inquiries! Such curiosity about the identity of the visiting faux-teur. The cinetrix knows she should move on, but she's just read through a batch of student responses to the film and its maker, and there's stuff in there too good not to share.

The kiddies were pretty evenly split. For every

"[Redacted] himself struck me as a brilliant man. I could tell he really has a passion for film and creating meaningful stories."

Or a more measured

"Although I did not understand much of the film, I did appreciate the way the film was constructed as far as editing and the setting."

There was a

"I'm not familiar with the work this movie is an adaptation of, but maybe there is a better explanation [of the plot] in it."

Or a

"After viewing [redacted] I felt like when someone is standing in a art gallery and everyone around them is awing about a certain painting and all I see is a paint blotch on a canvas. Basically, I wish I would have understood the film more to really appreciate it. All of the camera work was beautiful and the setting really made the film, but I just did not understand the story."

Then there were the outliers:

"Maybe I just didn't get the film, but for the most part I thought it was kind of ridiculous and boring. It almost had this cheesy melodramatic quality that I don't think should have been present for what the film was trying to convey. It's funny that I should find a film that is so non-stop boring. I think it was probably the poor acting, and some of the unreality of the scenes.... [Redacted] did a great job answering questions at the end of the film. He gave extremely thorough/long winded answers."

And

"Right off the bat all I can say is WOW! This movie was awesome.... When I'm at a movie and don't check my watch to see what time it is once, I know that I definitely liked it.... Hearing [redacted] at the screening was way cool. He was very well spoken and a much worldlier than I imagined before I had the chance to meet him....Lastly, as I walked out of the theater with my girl friend, she commented 'that might be one of the coolest people I have ever met. I would love to sit down and just talk with him over dinner or something.'"

Note: Before you start hating on my students because of typos or syntax issues, know that these are meant to be informal responses. Plus, the cinetrix enjoys these little glimpses into the poor dears' ids, so don't spoil her fun.

Uh oh, it's magic

Folks, you know you're in trouble when an indie director introduces his film by invoking "magical realism." It means you're in for a long night of leaps in logic and logy pronouncements made by characters who tend to disapparate. Also, there might be portentous cuts to snow owls. I am not, as a certain Miami-based scribe might say, making this up.

Here's the difficulty. Much as I would like to launch into a full-blown rant, naming names and pointing fingers, some schoolyard sense of honor is holding me back. See, I am involved with the program that brought said Fellini-and Bunuel-dropping faux-teur to town, and, as a rule, I believe in its mission and enjoy spending time with the majority of the filmmakers I meet.

Not this one, however. The 'Fesser and I dined with the guy, then he skedaddled before the screening [later texting me a message that used the word "sebaceous"]. It was quite a meal. First the cinetrix watched with amusement as the guy ordered a meal, then asked to substitute vast constituent elements of it. Then she foolishly steered him toward the subject of film critics. There were students at the dinner and the film we were screening had been in limited release [and even reviewed in the Times], so I was curious to hear what this guy thought about how reviews affected the fortunes of flicks like his. Hoo-boy. Let's just say that never was I happier to be a stealth blogger as this guy launched into a rant about how the Internets have ruined everything. And so on. He was quite a talker, that one.

And in a first, we didn't repair to our local after the screening to continue conversations in an informal, congenial setting. Well, we did, but only after first dropping off the filmmaker at his hotel. Oh, it was bad.

Help the cinetrix feel better. Dish about your worst/most disappointing cinematic encounter in the comments. Use of clever pseudonyms and other masking devices to protect the guilty is understandable, though not encouraged.