Robbmonster Reviews

Raw Deal (1948)

Don't look for logic, just look

[6/10 · 17 November 2018]

Pat (Claire Trevor) helps bust erstwhile boyfriend Joe Sullivan (Dennis O'Keefe) out of prison. His way of thanking her is to take her to his P.O's home, kidnap her, and decide he would prefer to have her as his girl instead. Complications ensue.

The main selling points of this film are the great John Alton's cinematography, establishing a perfect noir mood that is matched by an eerie theramin-based score and moody, broken Trevor voiceover. The plot is a rather standard 'escapee on the run while also seeking revenge against those who wronged him' that is bolstered by some excellent performances, particularly from Claire Trevor as a woman attracted inexplicably to a man who will never return her feelings, but is happy enough to keep her around and keep using her as long as it suits him.

Despite the performances, the characters are weak. Trevor's Pat is the most sympathetic character (haven't we all been attracted to exactly the wrong person at some point in our lives?), but O'Keefe's Joe is a cypher - it is impossible to determine his motivation for doing almost anything he does, and as such is basically an unlikable protagonist. There is absolutely no reason for his sudden advances toward Ann Martin (Marsha Hunt) outside of a desire to conquer, possess, and corrupt her, but even this is murky.

There is a also a sequence in which a fleeing murderer temporarily shacks up with out central trio and their benevolent helper, and when I say temporarily, I mean TEMPORARILY. This murderer (played by Whit Bissell) shows up, rants and raves for a couple of minutes, then leaves, having left no lasting impact on either story nor character.

Also worth mentioning is a rather sadistic performance by Raymond Burr as the target of Joe's revenge plans. This 'villain' is rather hands-off in terms of driving story, but the character is kept interesting through his very nature.

Main pros: excellent performance by Claire Trevor, classic noir atmosphere and cinematography.

Main cons: unlikable characters, illogical character/plot decisions.

Recommended if you can look past the strange character decisions and pointless plot excursions.

Death Proof (2007)

talk

[3/10 · 20 September 2018]

Bunch of girls talk about nothing relevant for 45 minutes or so, then there is a 5 minute action scene.

Different bunch of girls come along, talk about different - though equally pointless - things for another 45 minutes, then there is a 15 minute action scene.

And that's about it. Tarantino's dialogue is on display, but in this one, all the characters talk with pretty much the same voice. There is not a single character worth caring about. Not. One.

Admittedly, I don't know much about the gridhouse tradition, but were those movies REALLY just a bunch of people lounging around talking, truncated by the occasional action scene?

3 stars because the girls are cute, and the film contains some of the best car stunts we have seen in decades. But overall, it really doesn't have much going for it.

The Web (1947)

Twisty, pacy little noir thriller *spoilers*

[6/10 · 4 February 2017]

Saw this film for the first time last night. Nice little noir, and I genuinely liked the character played by Vincent Price. I mean I actually liked the guy, and I'm usually someone who goes for the good guys.

Good performances all around, actually. Ella Raines was effective as the femme anti-fatale, William Bendix was great in a performance that reminded me of the work James Gandolfini would be doing 50-60 years later, and Edmond O'Brien was always a solid noir lead, without ever truly setting the world on fire.

Two things bothered me. One was the ending, with the gambit about the dead body. It just didn't quite work for me.

The other was the trick of using the friend to impersonate the late Victor Bruno and then simply assuming Colby wouldn't be able to tell it wasn't him. I understand it was different times, but it did seem to have a racist and xenophobic quality to it, relying as it did on the basic conceit that all 'foreigners' sound the same. The idea of getting anyone with any accent to impersonate a 'foreigner' - who you never heard speak and haven't the faintest idea what his voice sounded like - , and then just assuming the baddie won't be able to tell the difference, well, stupid writing, stupid characters, maybe hoping for a stupid audience, or maybe all three.

But in all, a cool little movie, certainly a bit far-fetched, but nice atmosphere, brisk pace, and wonderful performances.

L.A. Confidential (1997)

didn't like it when I first saw it, but now...

[9/10 · 24 October 2005]

I did not like this film the first time I saw it.

It was during the films theatrical run, so it would have been 1997 or 1998. I saw an early morning screening at Greater Union in Melbourne when I should have been at school. I was not familiar with any of the actors, Kim Basinger and Danny DeVito excluded, but those two were "movie stars". I remember being especially impressed with Guy Pearce as Ed Exley, but that was about it. I found the story too dense and slow-moving, qualities I now greatly appreciate. Indeed, the dense and slow-moving Once Upon a Time in the West is my all-time favourite movie. It is not unusual that I now like the film so much. I once heard about a reviewer who voted Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in America "worst film of the year", only to name it "best film of the decade" eight years later.

L.A. Confidential is quite possibly the best film of the nineties, superbly written, played, and put together. The script - written by director Curtis Hanson and collaborator Brian Helgeland from the "unfilmable" novel by James Ellroy - is simply superb, perfectly playing a three-character structure and intersecting in a way that is pleasing and unpredictable. The very lingo-ridden dialogue is also great, and the wonderful cast do a fine job of delivering it.

The contributions of the actors cannot be overstated, with each part played pitch perfect. This is an even greater accomplishment when you consider that each of the three lead characters is basically unlikeable. Jack Vincennes (Spacey) is a cop driven by a love of status and attention, Ed Exley, played by Guy Pearce, is a ruthlessly ambitious political-type cop, willing to do whatever is required to speed his climb up the ladder of the LAPD. Pearce delivers what is, in my opinion, easily the best performance of the film. Russell Crowe's brutal Bud White is given the chance to develop the most throughout the film, and Crowe handles this with trademark moxie. The fact that these three actors - given their characters are basically unlikeable - are able to make an audience come to respect and like them is testament to the wonderful script as much as it is to the actors.

But the acting goes much deeper. Kim Basinger won an Oscar for her role as Hooker With a Heart of Gold Lynn Bracken. James Cromwell also scores as police captain Dudley Smith. Also of note for me are the performances of Graham Beckel as Dick Stensland, and those of the three "Nite Owl Suspects".

Visually and sonically, the film omits (for me, at least) a strange, unplaceable vibe, especially noticeable in the opening scenes. I think this is due to the lack of any real score under these scenes. Composers and directors like usually to use the early portion of a film to set up character, and this same time is also used to set up the musical themes for each character. But in the case of L.A. Confidential, there is just a hollow absence. And it works perfectly.

There is not enough that can be said for this wonderful achievement, and there are a thousand reasons to see it. I cannot recommend L.A. Confidential highly enough.

War of the Worlds (2005)

A curious effort... big BIG spoilers

[6/10 · 2 July 2005]

Like many, I have been looking forward to this film for a long time. I saw it with friends, and as soon as the film ended, one friend turned to me and said "I didn't like it", and began to catalog changes from the book and the movie. I pointed out that the story was updated, and you can't really hope to stay faithful to a book that was written 107 years ago.

My immediate opinion of the film was that the first half was good, but the second half faltered badly. In WotW, Spielberg is at at his best when capturing the panic of the whole situation. But when the panic gives way to paranoia, this is where the film caves in, undone largely by the tokenism of Ogilvy (a vague, pointless character), and by the lack of explanation of various things seen in the film. As someone who has never read the book, what the hell were the red weeds growing everywhere? And how could the tripods have been buried underground for so long? Surely mankind would have found AT LEAST one of them at some point. Or maybe not, minor gripe.

Of major concern for me - as I'm positive it will be for most people - was the ending. Not about the "defeat" of the Martians (if they are indeed from Mars) but the more "personal" ending of Ray and family. The closing reunion begs the question... How in the hell did Robbie survive??? He went running headlong into the fire thirty seconds before things went to hell. Big mistake, filmmakers.

For that matter, how did the rest of the family come out so well? Maybe that will be told in the sequel. Usually Spielberg's trademark optimism doesn't bother me the way it does most, but this ending was 2 points off for me. In many films - good ones - the Hero is faced with a decision, and the decision he makes defines his character. Ray made his decision, for better or worse, and that decision was to sacrifice his son to save his daughter. Great. But then his son survives anyway. So much for character-defining decisions. He had his cake and ate it too. It smacks of the decision Neo was forced to make in The Matrix Reloaded: "save your girl or save the world". He made his decision, but was still able to do both. Doesn't sit well with me.

Praise. The first half of the film, I have mentioned, is virtuosity. There is wonderful work by Janusz Kaminski, expertly executing Spielbergs direction on such shots as the opening shot coming in from a helicopter to a closeup of Ferrier (which might have been achieved with CGI) and a marvelous extended shot of Ferrier and kids driving down the freeway with the "camera car" having to move around cars and weave in and out to keep track of the dialog. Watching this, I turned to the guy next to me and said "how the heck did they do that?" My friend had no answer.

The music by John Williams was uncharacteristically unobtrusive, containing no memorable themes and musical moments. This suited the tone of the film perfectly.

The tripods look great too.

In summary, a great opening showing much potential is undone by a weak second half, terrible coda, and the sudden onset of the ending, with nary a climax to speak of.

The Hunted (2003)

See it for what it is *possible spoilers*

[6/10 · 7 June 2004]

My posting a review of The Hunted is in direct contradiction of my beliefs about this film, but so is anyone reading it, so it's a moot point.

I saw The Hunted last night, a spontaneous hire at my local video store based on the premise, actors, director, and director of photography.

The Hunted smacks of The Fugitive, with vast echoes in the form of the presence of Tommy Lee Jones - who seems to be unofficially playing the same character - and a daring escape by the 'title' character, jumping from a high point to seeming certain death in the form of imposing water.

There are bountiful references to other films also. Predator, First Blood, and Apocalypse Now all spring to mind. Indeed, the film could be thought of as being a scenario on what might have happened to Capt. Willard from Apocalypse Now after he returned home after Viet Nam. Another connection is that The Hunted DP, Caleb Deschanel, served as insert DP on Apocalypse Now.

Early on, a payoff is set up when the filmmakers go to a small amount of trouble to show the audience that Tommy Lee Jones is afraid of heights. One of those moments where the viewer thinks 'that's gonna pay off later', it is never paid off, despite Jones being caught in some tall situations as the story progresses.

But I liked the film. Also worth noting is that I saw it having known absolutely nothing about it coming in. I have noticed a trend in my tastes where I seem to be drawn to films featuring deeply-flawed characters who nonetheless remain extremely capable. Think of John Anderton in Minority Report, Agent Sands in Once Upon a Time in Mexico, and even Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs, and you begin to get the point. Well, The Hunted features two such characters, and they are in direct competition. I always liked films featuring worthy adversaries, and The Hunted rates highly in this department. The scenes in the city where Jones attempts to track del Toro play this well, with del Toro trained to vanish, stalked by Jones, trained to see.

The Hunted also features a subtle and effective score by Brian Tyler, and excellent photography by Caleb Deschanel, with more than a slight nod to the aforementioned Apocalypse Now. Jones is good, even if the audience does feel they have 'seen it all before' from Jones. But to his credit, Jones is very physical in his performance, and gives his all. Del Toro is also good, playing a character murky of motivation, and damaged of psyche.

In closing, I will say I see the film for the hugely derivative vehicle it is, but I liked it anyway, mostly because of the visuals and the physicality of the performances.

Not recommended, unless you can look past the similarities to other films. Or see it knowing nothing about it, like I did. But if you've read this, that is now impossible :)

25th Hour (2002)

Frustrating, but worthwhile *possible spoilers*

[8/10 · 11 June 2003]

A great opening scene sets up Norton's character brilliantly; he finds a wounded dog on the roadside and decides to kill it. When the dog snarls at him, Monty sees the dog still wants to live and decides instead to capture it and take it to the vet. The dog remains his companion throughout the film. The film benefits from fantastic performances and a director who knows what he's doing. I'll make an early prediction for another Oscar nomination for Norton, and Pepper might get one also. The film is basically very powerful and well told, and keeps you guessing right to the end.

The film suffers from a fractured sense of time. By this I mean that the film will kick into a flashback all of a sudden and you have no feel for how long ago it was. Paquin's character is just a piece of luggage who lends herself to another problem with the film - running time. The film is too long in getting started and too long in wrapping itself up, and also has a habit of going off on tangents, i.e.: Hoffman's infatuation with Paquin. This subplot is unnecessary to begin with but does have a good, thoughtful resolution.

All in all, the film is far from perfect, but Lee's style is as compelling as always, and the acting is spot on all around. Basically it is a good story well told, even if it is a little heavy on the seasoning in places. I also think most people will find the ending a mite frustrating.

Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)

My history with this film *possible spoilers*

[10/10 · 3 June 2003]

I once read somewhere that every film fan has that one film, seen by accident, usually on TV at some obscure hour, that just changes the way they view films for all time. Personally, I have two: Michael Lehmann's darkest of dark comedies "Heathers", and what may be the greatest of Sergio Leone's three masterpieces, "Once Upon A Time in the West".

One fine Saturday afternoon in 1997, I was eagerly anticipating a family road trip, and being the first ready, switched on the television to kill some time. The station that came up was a classic movie station on cable, and "OUATITW" was the film that was showing, about two minutes into that beautifully staged opening credit sequence. Like so many others before me, I'm sure, I watched spellbound as the action unfolded, and being the student of film I am, made sure to take in the director credit. I watched, hypnotized and perplexed, wondering where all this was heading. I was 17 years old at the time and was used to the current film-making style of not wasting a second, and this apparent time wasting had me intrigued.

And then, as the train pulled away and I heard for the first time the chilling harmonica salvo so synonymous with the film, I immediately understood. Revenge. And the simple, reply from Bronson after being told that his three seedy chaperone's didn't bring a horse for him: "You brought two too many", I was thinking the dude was some western superman.

And then he got shot! Brilliant. Maybe this hero isn't as invincible as he thinks he is. I ran from the room and grabbed my precious Leonard Maltin Film and Video Guide and looked up the film. I was hooked.

I didn't see all the film that day, but next time it was shown I taped myself a copy and have seen it may times since. It remains a film as great for it's parts as for it's whole. Charles Bronson's strong silent routine, Hank Fonda's cold villain, gradually killing his way toward a profound catharsis, Jason Robards' lovable rogue, a part he played to perfection, and the impossibly beautiful Claudia Cardinale, holding the piece together as a great female lead, although her role diminishes as the film rolls on.

And then there are the set-pieces. Of course, the opening credit sequence, an extremely tense scene in a bizarre roadhouse, Robards' exciting rescue of Bronson from a train, and the final Bronson/Fonda shootout, so protracted it puts The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly to shame.

Before I saw this film, I had absolutely DESPISED westerns. "Old man movies" I called them. After seeing it, I began actively researching them, trying to watch only the best, the most classic, and the most influential. Of all the westerns I have now seen, only Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch, and Leone's own The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly come close to this remarkable masterpiece.