Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login

Nixon

October 23rd 2006 10:25
Nixon (1995)


Following on the dynamic and successful 'Natural Born Killers', and drawing on the historical tapestry that fed 'JFK', Oliver Stone turned his conspiratorial sights on former U.S. President Richard Nixon... with surprising results. Instead of damning a target as easy as Nixon, Stone instead chose to portray the fallen President's eventful story as a tragedy. Keen to remind us of what Nixon did for America (and, as a byproduct, the rest of the world), but equally keen to push our faces right into the controversy and grit of the administration, the film gives us a fairly balanced and moving account of Watergate and the man’s career leading up to it.

From the start the style is uncompromisingly fast, tracking back and forth between different points in Nixon's life, and using different film stocks to portray a sense of history and it's coverage by the ever-watchful eyes of the media. This somewhat flashy style, coupled with a creepy replication of the period's paranoia (an atmosphere that permeates almost every scene) and a good dramatic score, does well to pull the audience through it's 3 hours-plus quite effortlessly.

Nixon is portrayed as a man who takes the hits but keeps on going regardless of whether he's going to win or lose (as exemplified in a football flashback). Here we are given the unlikely tragedy of an unlikeable man - and it works! We see a man who scapegoated himself on the world stage of history only to see his one true 'friend' Henry Kissinger (Paul Sorvino, barely unrecognisable under a false nose and perfectly replicated voice) sell him out and walk away with all the credit for the better results of the Nixon administration. Stone doesn't let this, or any other single thread, drive the film though - he knows better than to oversimplify things, and he expertly introduces each of the major players of the era through recognisable faces and well-constructed scenes (witness Bob Hoskins' introduction as FBI chief Hoover, via a horse track - here we see a man who pulls strings and plays games for gain, not caring for the cost of pawns).

As, perhaps, evidenced above - Stone is not one for being too subtle either, he is always keen to get his message across as clear as possible, as we see in a rather telling scene where Nixon accidentally pulls a doorknob off and remarks that the White House is literally 'falling apart'. I'm afraid I can't really fault this, as obvious as some of his nods to the audience might be, there is more than enough in his films to warrant him abandoning subtlety altogether.

Anthony Hopkins seems a rather strange choice to play Nixon, and he never really quite looks the part as far as I'm concerned, but his performance is powerful and nuanced enough to break my attention from this. It was good to see Hoskins, Sorvino, James Wood, etc, etc, filling out the lesser roles (all of which play a very second fiddle to the lead, which is always the case in biopics I suppose) and I'm glad I caved and picked up this video. I'd always felt Nixon was quite despicable, but by the end of the movie I felt quite sorry for him! It really got right under the skin of it's subject.

TRIVIA: Anthony Hopkins got himself another Best Actor Academy Award nomination for his efforts here.
65
Vote
   


JFK

September 26th 2006 06:52
JFK (1991)


JFK. Arguably Oliver Stone's most notorious and controversial film (and he's had a few). Where do I start? It's a film about the assassination of American President John F Kennedy, obviously, but it takes place a few years afterwards, with New Orleans DA Jim Garrison (Costner, suitably cast as the somewhat dull everyman) re-examining and reconstructing the events surrounding the suspiciously absolved assassination.

Director Oliver Stone recreates Garrison's real-life investigation as it happens, meticulously recreating events using real footage and eyewitness accounts. We see the building of the conspiracy theory, it takes us through the details and facts, revealing the inconsistencies of the events and the people involved who went unprosecuted. Stone saves what could easily have been a wordy and exposition-filled film through the use of various film sources and recreated flashbacks - showing us how events may have happened in the leadup to November 23, 1963.

It's not important that a definitive answer to who killed JFK can't be given. What's important is the questions this film (and Jim Garrison) forces us to ask. As Garrison says in the film, "The how’s and who’s aren't important" - it's the why that needs to be examined. And once we look at this, and see the myriad of anomalies in the original JFK investigation (the Warren Commission), we see inconsistencies that become apparent.

There's a lot of argument over this film and Jim Garrison's late-60s investigation... true, a lot of it is speculation, and true, it may be not be what really happened, but the fact remains that the Warren Commission left a lot of questions unanswered and that there is a conspiracy of some sort at work here. A lot of reviewers, critics and sceptics have taken great delight in picking holes in the suggestions this film makes, but they nearly always ignore the fact that the film is aware of it's speculation (to the extent that it doesn't give a definitive answer, instead opting to just show the large array of potentially guilty parties) and is more concerned with asking the questions that, suspiciously, no one bothered to ask all those years ago when JFK was shot in Dallas, Texas.

On a directorial level, the film itself is a fascinating recreation of history from alternative sources. Though even at 3 hours it's perhaps a little too short for the amount of information it has to convey, the film often bounds from lead to lead, sometimes without any warning, and even requires the viewer to work out certain inconsistencies for themselves (which is by no means a bad thing normally, but in a film as dense as this it can be distracting).

For anyone with an interest in history, or good solid filmmaking, this is a must-see. It's a perfect example of how to make an interesting and significant film without boring people... it's exciting, compelling and intriguing, and even fast-moving despite it's length.

HIGHLIGHTS: The cast! Look at the talent that appears... Kevin Costner, Tommy Lee Jones, Gary Oldman, Sissy Spacek, Joe Pesci, Vincent D'Onofrio, John Candy, Kevin Bacon, Wayne Knight, Ed Asner, Jack Lemmon, Walter Mathau, Donald Sutherland and John Larroquette (Director's Cut only).

Also, watch out for the footage of the actual JFK assassination, as well as the live broadcast of Lee Harvey Oswald's 'execution'.

TRIVIA: The real-life Jim Garrison makes an appearance as a Chief Justice.

'JFK' was nominated for 8 Academy Awards; Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor (Tommy Lee Jones), Best Director, Best Writing, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Sound and Best Music. It won for Cinematography and Film Editing.
86
Vote
   


Gangs of New York

August 30th 2006 08:11
Gangs of New York (2002)


Okay, I know this blog is called 'Old Movies' but I was getting sick of being restricted. Let's just say this blog is predominantly old movies, with the occasional newer film thrown in. Besides, it's at least 4 years old. And double besides, someone requested this particular review as well.

'Gangs of New York' is a Martin Scorsese film, so you know it's going to be anything but simplistic as far as it's themes are concerned. On the surface this is a film about one boy's quest for revenge, against the man who killed his father. But underneath this you'll find more than a few comments on where the United States of America came from, and, more importantly, where it's heading. I'm not about to get into a debate about American politics though, so on with the review.

A lot of people hate Leonardo DiCaprio. Most of this stems from 'Titanic' (and, to a lesser extent, 'Romeo and Juliet'), so I don't really blame them. I've never really had a problem with Leo though (yeah, that's right, I called him 'Leo', me and him go way back), I thought he was fantastic as the retarded kid in 'What's Eating Gilbert Grape', and he was perfectly cast in ‘Catch Me If You Can’. I have to admit to being less than impressed with 'The Man in the Iron Mask' but 'Gangs of New York' redeems any doubts one may have formed in regards to his acting. He fulfils the hero role impressively, and for those who fear total DiCaprio screen domination, you can be thankful that almost as much screen time is spent with the film's antagonist - Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting (Daniel Day Lewis).

Bill the Butcher

Daniel Day Lewis is amazing. He's a cunt for not making movies that much. I can't imagine anyone not being at least slightly impressed with his performance here. Lewis is a method actor, and an astounding one at that, so I had no problem forgetting that this was just a character on a screen. Such is the extent that he immerses himself in his character that you forget that Lewis the actor exists, and you certainly forget all the other roles you may or may not associate with him. Anyway, I'll stop now, I've wanked on for far too long about him – let’s just say he’s brilliant.

Diaz is annoying, but it's tolerable. The rest of the supporting cast is brilliant - Academy Award winner Jim Broadbent, Liam Neeson, Stephen Graham (Tommy from 'Snatch') and Henry Thomas (the kid from E.T.!), just to name a few, all feature. As expected, the direction is brilliant. There's an epic style to the camera work that complements the saga-like quality of the story. The attention to detail throughout is amazing, all the events of the era are acknowledged and featured to an extent that you feel that this is truly a slice of time.

More than a few people have been critical in regards to comparing this with Scorsese’s earlier work… I think that’s probably a little unfair. Films like ‘Taxi Driver’, ‘Mean Streets’, ‘Goodfellas’ and ‘Raging Bull’ have all had the passage of time after them, allowing for their reputations and classical status to build up. I think ‘Gangs of New York’ is a solid return to form for the director, it’s easily one of his good ones, and only time will tell if it stands up to his other classic films.

Anyway, I've waxed lyrical for long enough. I need to see this again, as there's a lot of themes to be absorbed from this film. Oh yeah, and it's probably important that I also acknowledge how entertaining it is. Quite a few people have remarked on the comic-book quality to the film; I wouldn't take it that far, but it is a colourful and frenzied story. Enjoy.
113
Vote
   


The Last Temptation of Christ

May 29th 2006 10:32
Martin Scorcese's much-vilified and deeply personal testament of humanity vs. spirituality is a film that I feared for a long time. I was afraid it would be shit, and dull, and artistic for the sake of being artistic. Thankfully, I was wrong.
The Last Temptation of Christ
The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)


[ Click here to read more ]
64
Vote
   


Spartacus

May 22nd 2006 08:33
Spartacus
Spartacus (1960)
Ah... there's nothing like a sword and sandal epic. It was nice to see 'Gladiator' revive the style, but it's always good to go back to the source. 'Spartacus' is one of Stanley Kubrick's earlier films, features a great cast and runs at nearly 4 hours.

'Spartacus' follows the life of the slave of the same name, bought as a gladiator by a Roman merchant, he eventually breaks the yoke of slavery and leads a massive slave revolt through the Roman Empire. As I mentioned, it's a long film, and covers a lot of ground. The film works in the complexities of Roman politics, with Spartacus' plight affected by the rivalry between the political factions who seek to rule Rome and it's sprawling empire


[ Click here to read more ]
55
Vote
   


Mutiny on the Bounty

May 18th 2006 06:08
Mutiny on the Bounty
Mutiny on the Bounty (1933)
I've only seen the original version of this film (the 1933 version that is, it's been remade twice). It's not for lack of wanting, this has just been the only one I've been able to get my hands on so far.

This is a very entertaining account of the oft-retold historical events. Charles Laughton is terrifically terrifying as the mean-spirited Captain Bligh, Clark Gable romantically-dashing as man’s man Fletcher Christian, and the cast remarkably filled out by a fine host of character-actors. The film manages to be light-hearted and amusing at times without detracting from the gravity of the historical event at the centre of it. It may seem a little uneven to people used to the pace of today’s films, especially with the climax leaving a little to be desired (but thankfully aiming not to meddle with the facts too much


[ Click here to read more ]
67
Vote
   


Moderated by Luke
Copyright © 2012 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]