Movie Review: V for Vendetta

March 28, 2006

The look of V FOR VENDETTA surprised me.  I thought it would be very dark and moody, like Batman.  But it wasn’t.  Of course, the scenes where lurking in shadows and fighting at night where necessary, then it was dark.  But overall, the film had a bright tone, and that saved it.  In many ways, the film knew it was still a comic book despite some serious themes like dictatorship, and the fine line between patriotism and treason.

Natalie Portman is beginning to stand on her own as a major actress.  She can easily carry a film without other major stars.  But the acting marvel here was Hugo Weaving who could only express his behavior and thoughts through his voice and body gestures.  Most actors rely on their eyes, or a quivering cheek (like the irritating quiver of Kurt Russell in most of his movies).  But Hugo Weaving wore a mask in the entire film.  He was excellent.  I’m glad to see Stephen Rea again.  I’ve always liked him ever since THE CRYING GAME.

This film starts the summer season well, with bigger names and bigger concepts coming our way.  Tom Hanks in THE DA VINCI CODE, Tom Cruise in MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 3, X-MEN 3, and SUPERMAN RETURNS.

I was at a dinner and beer thing the other night and heard raves and rants about V.  I suppose the best way to back up this movie as a good film is this way:  if the film were to be judged by Randy, Paula, and Simon, you would expect what they would say.  “It’s hot,” Randy would bark. Paula (in tears) would say it is the best film she has ever seen and can’t wait to see the next one.  Simon would complain about how come the rest of the world wasn’t focused on, just his home England, but aside from that, it was an enjoyable action film. 

“A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having.” - a quote from V.

P.S.  I liked 16 BLOCKS also.  I got confused by Mos Def’s acting choice thinking it was a ploy to trick the cops.  But eventually I thought his acting choice was quite brave because most people would think it would be irritating.  That’s how Nicolas Cage used to be when he was younger.  He would go for these crazy choices and make himself stand out, mostly negatively.  But now we know how Nic Cage can bring this style to greater heights.  Maybe Mos Def can too one day.

  

Time to Go Back to MUNICH

March 1, 2006

The favorite to win this year’s Best Picture Oscar is BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN.  I haven’t seen it, but I will.  I also want to see, if it’s possible, all the nominated pictures before the Oscar telecast on Monday.  The five nominees, once again, are: BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, CAPOTE, CRASH, GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK, and MUNICH.  I’ve only seen CRASH and MUNICH so far (MUNICH twice).

I am a fan of Steven Spielberg, as many of my blog followers know already.  A lot of his critics criticize his “sentimentality.”  But for his die-hard fans and the millions who find his work powerful and emotional, it is this sentimentality that make them like his films in the first place.  You should hear the comments against the scene “I could have done more” in SCHINDLER’S LIST, that it was too sentimental and manipulative.  My answer is, what is wrong with that?  I want to feel Oskar Schindler’s pain - the first time in the entire film that he expressed his inner turmoil.  He couldn’t show any human weakness until that point, and so I wonder why people who don’t like this scene feel manipulated by Spielberg’s style.  Even the combat horror of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN wasn’t saved from the savage anti-sentimental attacks, when at the end, the elderly Ryan asked “Am I a good man?”  He was a good man, and it is a GREAT FILM.

Enter MUNICH…perhaps Spielberg’s least sentimental film yet shows more about his true sentiments than what he’s done before.  For this reason, I would say it is one of his best films.  It is very brave - many say he tried to show both sides of the Israel - Palestinian conflict, but I think he really stuck to his guns and said what he wanted.  Yes, it is true that the Palestinian side were given real faces, names, family lives, emotions, dignity, and their viewpoint.  But in return, Spielberg showed his powerful viewpoint.  He is not averse to retaliation, and this political stance is a major pronouncement from cinema’s most influential filmmaker.  Most of the time, bold statements are done by director’s flying under the radar - or because they make a big impression, suddenly is within the radar.  Spielberg has been Spielberg since JAWS, 30 years ago.

It is also excellent filmmaking (again).  His direction is so invisible - unlike the obvious in-your-face camera moves and editing of a Scorsese; nor does his direction have the obvious tongue-in-cheek method of a Tarantino.  Spielberg doesn’t need to have a signature move.  He wants to tell a story and so doesn’t want to distract you by showcasing the storyteller. 

(I wrote this already before, but will say it again, Daniel Craig will make an excellent James Bond.)

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN will certainly take the spotlight this year and will be considered a breakthrough film.  It is ok.  I am happy for Ang Lee and James Schamus - they’ve been making great films together for over ten years.  But I feel I have to give my last campaign for MUNICH - not that I think it should win, but I think it should be seen.  Yet Spielberg doesn’t need me to push his lastest movie.  Great works have a way of putting itself out there for a long long time, way way after the awards season.

Dialogue from the film (MUNICH):

Daphna: We should stay at home.
Avner: You are the only home I ever had.
Daphna: [Laughs] This is so corny
Avner: What? That took a lot for me to say!
Daphna: I bet. Why did I have to marry a sentimentalist? You’re ruining my life.
Avner: [to their newborn baby] Your mother’s teasing me.