By Brett Blake
There has been much talk amongst film critics about how 2013 has been some kind of magical, banner year for film. One of those years that only comes along perhaps once in a decade. A year in which we got movies that will last the test of time. In many critics’ “Best of 2013” articles that I’ve so far come across, this idea is presented almost as a given, as if to say, “Well, of course 2013 was an incredible year! Look at all the great films we got!” It’s a nice sentiment, and clearly an argument can be made in its favor, as many people are doing just that; see this Vanity Fair piece for a well-reasoned example. But the thing is, I kind of don’t see it. At all. Now, part of me is definitely a bit of a contrarian, and I sometimes revolt when I see a large group of people generating a new conventional wisdom out of thin air, but that’s not what this is about. I - very honestly - don’t think 2013 was an all-time great year for movies. The last year I’d assign that title would be 2007 - which, I’m confident, will take its place alongside the very best years for cinema ever, right up there with 1939, 1976, and 1982. 2013, though… I think it’s been a fine year, for sure, and I’d never attempt to make the case that it’s been below average in any way. There have certainly been some superb films released (let me insert a shameless plug here for my own “Best of 2013” list, coming soon!), and even more good, solid efforts. Therein, perhaps, is the “problem” as I see it: I think we got a lot of good-but-not-great movies this year, movies you watch once, enjoy and appreciate for what they are, and then have no real burning desire to regularly revisit. When I go back and look at some of the films that were on my “Best of 2012” list last year… - LINCOLN - ARGO - DJANGO UNCHAINED - THE MASTER - SKYFALL - LOOPER - ZERO DARK THIRTY - THE GREY - THE CABIN IN THE WOODS … I see a group of films that I’ve already revisited several times each, and plan to continue to do so, almost compulsively, because they’re that great. 2013 has had some of those, but not nearly on 2012’s level. The most striking thing to me when examining the two years is this: if those same films from 2012 had been released in 2013 - in addition to everything else that did come out in 2013 - they would still be the movies to make my list over most (but not all) of 2013’s output. For me, there were simply more films in 2012 that resonated with me than there were this year. Obviously, choosing to compare two years is totally arbitrary, but I’ve done it here only to point out that nobody talked about 2012 as though it was a magical year for movies, and yet - of the two - it’s the year that "clicked" far more with me. Of course, It’s all personal taste; I’m not going to tell people who think 2013 was amazing that their opinion is wrong, because it’s true for them. I have absolutely no doubt that those critics who are head-over-heels in love with the movies of this year are completely sincere. Difference of opinion is what makes it fun to discuss cinema, and my intention here was not to say that 2013 sucked, or had nothing to offer. I just wanted to add a modest counter-balance to the perspective that 2013 was a brilliant year. Maybe it was. Maybe I was just never tuned into its wavelength like I was with 2012. In any case, I’m seeking feedback. I need to know if I’m missing something. Set me straight if you think I’ve got it all wrong. Convince me that 2013 was the incredible year for movies that most people seem to think. I want to believe!
0 Comments
By Brett Blake Film scores are an intense interest of mine, and despite 2013 being a seriously lackluster year in that department, I’ve taken it upon myself to put something together honoring the year in cinematic music. I first thought of doing a simple list of my favorite scores of the year, but then I decided to go in a slightly different (and hopefully more interesting and fun) direction. What follows is a list, yes, but of the eleven best individual cues/tracks from the year’s scores. I know that eleven’s kind of a strange number, but I just couldn’t find a way to cut this down to ten, so eleven it is. Turn up the volume, and let’s begin... 11. “Where To?” from The Wolverine (Marco Beltrami) Beltrami’s score overall is a decent effort, but the standout cue is this end titles piece. It presents an optimistic theme over a propulsive rhythm that suggests our hero undertaking a journey. The progression is simple (state the theme, re-state the theme in bigger fashion, re-state the theme in even bigger fashion, etc), but it’s effective. 10. “StarWaves” from Oblivion (M83) An ambient and atmospheric track that builds towards an aural crescendo of electronic harmony that would be right in line with the kind of film scoring Tangerine Dream did in their prime. The entirety of the score is a bit hit-or-miss, but this one cue is its unquestionable highlight. 09. “Inside Information” from The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (Howard Shore) This track presents several variations of the themes for Smaug, one an eerie and occasionally brutal descending motif, the other a more intellectual and sinister melody. Shore’s usage of bells, gongs, percussion, and other eastern instrumentation gives Smaug’s music a vaguely-Chinese flavor that suits the dragon quite well. 08. “What Are You Going to Do When You Are Not Saving the World?” from Man of Steel (Hans Zimmer) An end credits-type piece that acts as a summation of all of Zimmer’s musical ideas for Superman. We have a hopeful (albeit with a somewhat melancholic flavor) theme for piano, which gives way to a building sense of momentum, before unleashing the full power of the orchestra with Zimmer’s main theme for the Man of Steel, which is grand and heroic (if also a little simplistic) in a manner befitting the character himself. 07. “Finale” from The Lone Ranger (Hans Zimmer) A hugely entertaining action track that makes use of the iconic “William Tell Overture” by Rossini. The first two-or-so minutes are a pretty straight-forward (though beefed-up) version of the Overture, and then Zimmer begins to play with the melody and the rhythms in some really fun variations, before eventually bringing in his own main theme for the Lone Ranger in noble and heroic fashion at around the 7:30 mark into the cue. The rest of Zimmer’s score is fairly uninspired, but there was no way I could leave this track off the list. It’s way too much fun. 06. “The Pendant / Evil Tango” from Evil Dead (Roque Banos) This end credits pieces gives you a great idea of the variety this score offers. It begins with a delicate, lovely theme for the film’s heroine, before crashing into a demonic, darkly playful rendition of the the score’s central theme, complete with a choir and slashing strings. Banos’ score in its entirety is one of the very best of the year, and don’t let the title or reputation of the franchise tell you otherwise. 05. “The Forest River” from The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (Howard Shore) A swirling, frenzied, and spectacular action cue that combines driving rhythms with multiple themes being tossed around the orchestra. It really captures the pulse of the roller-coaster-ride-type antics going on in the sequence. 04. “The Book Thief” from The Book Thief (John Williams) Many feel that this score is simply Williams “on autopilot,” and I guess I don’t necessarily disagree, but here’s what I’m certain of: Williams on autopilot is lightyears ahead of most other people. This suite offers a nice summation of the score’s themes and ideas, displaying a melancholic-yet-gorgeous mood that feels effortlessly conjured up by Williams. 03. “Can You Dig It?” from Iron Man 3 (Brian Tyler) A blast of fun that perfectly captures the energetic spirit of the film, and it’s got a great 1960s/1970s-snazzy-TV-theme-song quality that’s hard to dislike. That there’s also a distinct (and hummable) theme present is a huge plus. 02. “Beyond the Forest” from The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (Howard Shore) A striking track in which Shore expounds on some of his new themes for the film, it begins with a delicate and lush tone, then slowly grows into a full-throated, grand piece. There’s some stunning writing going on here, particularly for the strings and choir. 01. “Ode to Harrison” from Star Trek Into Darkness (Michael Giacchino) A lengthy presentation of Giacchino’s mysterious theme for the “John Harrison” character; several motifs are presented and slowly build off each other, and the track gradually increases in intensity until exploding into a grand statement of the melody. It’s a knockout cue, and one that was left off the album release of the score, which is shockingly inexplicable, as it’s the best piece of music Giacchino wrote for the film. Luckily, Giacchino presented the track on a radio show, thereby releasing it to the world. BONUS! - “Marvel Studios Fanfare” from Thor: The Dark World (Brian Tyler) Even though it’s far too short to take up one of the proper spots on this list (clocking in at under 30 seconds), I had to include this little piece as an added bonus (free of charge!). It perfectly sets the mood for the larger-than-life characters of the Marvel Universe with an absolutely HUGE sound and a catchy fanfare.
Feel free to share your favorite tracks and scores from 2013! By Brett Blake AMERICAN HUSTLE Director David O. Russell’s latest is a smart, frequently funny, and hugely entertaining romp. Telling a fictionalized version of the ABSCAM scandal from the 1970s, wherein elected officials were caught taking bribes, AMERICAN HUSTLE plays fast and loose with the actual facts of the case, but this is acceptable as it never purports to be a true documentation of what really occurred. Russell has assembled an incredible line-up of performers, and they’re all terrific. As the central character, Christian Bale undergoes yet another physical transformation, but beyond the physical, Bale gets to the core of this person, a con man with a big heart, and it’s one of the most entertaining performances he’s ever given. Even better is Amy Adams as Bale’s partner in crime; it might be the best work she’s has ever done. She’s totally convincing and compelling as a woman dying to become somebody else, and for as strong a person as she comes across, there’s a tremendous amount of vulnerability simmering underneath. Bradley Cooper is pretty much a riot as the FBI agent who ropes in Bale and Adams, and while it veers dangerously close to being too goofy a performance, Cooper pulls it all together, and he’s the comedic highlight of the movie. Also a comedic highlight is Jennifer Lawrence, and most of her scenes are terrifically humorous (a sequence involving her singing and dancing to “Live and Let Die” might be one of the funniest things I’ve seen all year). Lastly, we have Jeremy Renner as a politician and a target of Bale, Adams, and Cooper, and he exudes a humanity that makes for a great contrast to the lunacy going on with the other characters. All of five these actors should be up for major awards consideration; whether or not they actually will be is yet to be seen. Thematically, the movie has much to say about phoniness, in the sense that there are multiple cons going on here. Cons within cons, and the people being conned are often those who give in to the temptation of corruption. Everybody’s a fake on some level, or a person trying to be somebody they’re not. Only Renner’s character actually seems like a truly honorable, above-board fellow… and yet he still finds himself resorting to criminal activity, all the while purporting to be doing it for the benefit of his constituents. It’s not a heavy-handed idea in the movie, but it is there for people to find and examine if they so choose. There’s one other issue that I want to touch on, and that’s the notion that some critics have brought up involving this film being, essentially, some kind of imitation of the works of Martin Scorsese. I can see that argument up to a point, I suppose: there’s voice-over narration, the editing is electrifying, the use of needle-drops for the music is fantastic (REALLY fantastic, in fact; the songs - and their usage within scenes - are killer), and the overall tone and setting is not too dissimilar from Scorsese’s classic, GOODFELLAS. But those are surface similarities. Is any movie set in the 1970s, involving crime, and with a rollicking pace suddenly a Martin Scorsese rip-off? I don’t think so, and AMERICAN HUSTLE exists completely on its own terms. To merely waive it off as Scorsese-lite does a tremendous disservice to David O. Russell’s directorial work here, which is one of the best efforts of this year (and, I’d wager, the film would look and feel very much the same if GOODFELLAS never existed). Bringing up the Scorsese argument seems like a cheap way to detract from the film, and I felt I had to - at least partially - refute it. It might sound like damning with faint praise to say this, but I will anyway: this is a relatively light film, almost a caper, for even at its most grim, there’s such a lightness of touch and a desire to entertain that it’s never less than a completely enjoyable experience, and the conclusion - however improbable or “Hollywood ending”-ish - wraps the whole film up in an enormously satisfying, crowd-pleasing bow. SAVING MR. BANKS Who would have thought that the behind-the-scenes backstory of the making of MARY POPPINS would be this good of a film? Well, obviously, I thought it would, but I was in the tank for this film the moment I heard about it: a look at how Walt Disney - at the height of his Hollywood power - managed to pry the film rights of the Mary Poppins character from her creator, P.L. Travers, is an incident that all good Disney-philes, of which I am one, probably have at least some knowledge of. But what about the mass audience? Could this story really make a compelling film for everybody? I think SAVING MR. BANKS proves the answer to that question is a resounding “yes,” and it’s one of the best movies of the year. The film’s fictionalized version of the real events presents a trip made by Travers (played by Emma Thompson) from London to Hollywood in 1961, where she meets Disney (played by Tom Hanks), as well as the creative team he’s assembled to bring Mary Poppins to the screen. Story conferences, arguments, and trips to Disneyland ensue. Beneath that, we are also told the story of Travers’ childhood (where she’s portrayed - very effectively - by Annie Rose Buckley) in Australia, and her relationship with her father (played by Colin Farrell), a free-spirited, big-hearted man with too strong an attachment to alcohol. The first thing that has to be said is that, as Travers, Emma Thompson is phenomenal. It would be very easy to portray her as some kind of unlikable nightmare, a picky control freak who cannot be pleased by anything, and while Thompson certainly does convey a certain amount of that, she adds so much more depth and pathos to the part (something aided, no doubt, by the thoughtful script from Kelly Marcel and Sue Smith). As Travers, Thompson’s tough-as-nails exterior is concealing immense vulnerability, which assures that her more rough edges and attitudes never become tedious. It’s a marvelous characterization, and it’s one of her best performances. Then there’s Tom Hanks’ Walt Disney, which - if I’m being honest - is what I was really looking forward to out of this movie, and Hanks goes not disappoint. He’s got all the folksy charm and warmth and enthusiasm of which the real Disney displayed bucketfuls… but there’s a whole lot more going on under the surface, a resolve and a savvy that befits a man who was a self-made mogul, and one of the most powerful men in the entertainment industry. I expect many people will claim, given the fact that Walt Disney Pictures is the production entity behind this film, that the movie’s some kind of hagiography, a depiction of Disney-as-saint; the movie never presents Disney as anything less than a tremendously decent man, so those looking for him to be shown as some kind of tyrannical taskmaster will surely be gravely disappointed. I’ve read many books about Disney’s life, so I like to think I’ve got a good handle on the sort of person he really was, and I tend to think this film’s depiction of him is pretty darn close to who the real guy was. The supporting roster adds a lot of nice color to the film, as well. Bradley Whitford, Jason Schwartzman, and B.J. Novak portray the inner circle of creative minds working on MARY POPPINS, and their frequent exasperation with having to meet the demands of Thompson’s Travers is pretty entertaining. Through these characters, the movie also does a surprisingly great job of illustrating the creative process itself, and how collaboration is often a difficult - but necessary - enterprise, and one that frequently strengthens the final product. Paul Giamatti pops up as Travers’ Hollywood chauffeur, and he adds a nice, “aw shucks” normality to his part that makes the character’s slowly-growing friendship with Travers interesting, and not quite as cliched as it could have been. Finally, we have Colin Farrell as Travers’ father, and he gives a very strong, even passionate performance as a deeply flawed man who tragically cannot live up to the idealized version of himself that his young daughter sees. The film heavily employs the use of flashbacks - something the marketing has hinted at, but mostly shied away from - to tell this story young Travers and her father. At first, the flashbacks felt hastily-edited, and as if they were interrupting the flow of the present day storyline. Eventually, though, the editing falls into a nice rhythm, and there’s some intercutting/juxtaposing of events from one time period with events from the other that makes for some pretty powerful moments. Technically, the movie is rock-solid. The period details of both turn-of-the-century Australia and early-1960s Hollywood feel well-observed, and the cinematography captures them in rich, warm detail. Thomas Newman’s musical score is also effective (though, I’ll add, exactly the kind of score we’ve heard from him a few times before); however, the movie gets the most musical mileage out of the actual songs that Richard and Robert Sherman wrote for MARY POPPINS. It’s particularly fun to see the two brothers actually hashing out lyrics and melodies, many of which don’t sit well at all with Travers, but the moment when she finally does connect with one of their songs is as joyous a sequence as has been captured on film this year. SAVING MR. BANKS has no pretensions of being an “important” film, despite attempts to place it into an “Oscar bait” category. It’s concerned with telling an interesting story in compelling and entertaining fashion, and it more than achieves that. The phrase “feel-good film of the year” is a horrible, overused cliche, but sometimes it is an apt description. It certainly is in this case, as I can’t imagine somebody walking out of SAVING MR. BANKS without a smile on his or her face. By Brett Blake There’s been a lot of carping in online film criticism circles about the relative merits of director Peter Jackson’s HOBBIT trilogy, with many deriding the decision to split the slim source novel into three movies (a fair-enough point of contention), and others finding these new films lacking in the subtlety and depth that were plentiful in LORD OF THE RINGS. And you know what? They’re absolutely right about that - these HOBBIT films aren’t coursing with the weighty import of any of the LORD OF THE RINGS installments. But here’s the thing… neither is the novel; it’s a pure adventure tale, which is something THE HOBBIT: THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG understands perfectly, and it captures a sense of spectacle and excitement that many so-called blockbusters could only hope to achieve. Picking up rather unceremoniously after the events of the previous film, AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY, this second film finds Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) and the band of Dwarves - led by Thorin (Richard Armitage) - drawing nearer to Erebor, the Lonely Mountain, inside which dwells the titular Smaug, a massive, fire-breathing dragon. Obstacles present themselves along the way, but it’s no spoiler to say that our heroes do finally enter the mountain in this film, and in doing so come face-to-snout with Smaug. Where that leads to I leave for audiences to discover for themselves; of course, if you’ve read the novel, you have a pretty good idea of what transpires with the dragon, though Peter Jackson throws a few curveballs into the narrative. Right from the jump, it’s clear that DESOLATION OF SMAUG is a marked improvement over last year’s UNEXPECTED JOURNEY (which I’m still a big fan of); whereas that film - somewhat by necessity - spent a good chunk of its first hour setting the stage for the adventure ahead, this film launches into adventure full-steam. It’s an episodic structure (at least until the company reaches the mountain), but it moves at a fast clip, and the individual encounters are thoroughly interesting, distinct, and entertaining. We meet Beorn, a man who can transform into a giant bear. We encounter a pack of terrifying spiders. We learn more about the Elves and their antagonism towards the Dwarves. We spend a good deal of time with the people of Lake-town, a location we’ll be seeing more of in the next film, including Bard (Luke Evans), who’ll also be a key figure in the next movie. Similarly, this episodic nature allows the story to present us with a more varied and interesting assortment of characters than last time around. Legolas (Orlando Bloom) returns to Middle Earth, joined by newcomer Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), and their relationship to each other - as well as the Dwarves - appears primed to play a large role in the next film. Ditto for Bard, who’s given a compelling backstory and family life, which is a welcome expansion of his character from the novel version of the man, who’s a bit of a blank slate; here, by establishing that Bard has a unique connection to Smaug’s past, it truly feels like this is a character who’ll receive quite a satisfying payoff, albeit in a full year's time. Once we get inside the mountain, we are finally able to meet Smaug (as voiced by Benedict “I’ve been in every movie this year!” Cumberbatch), and his confrontation with Bilbo and the Dwarves is absolutely fantastic. From a purely design standpoint, Smaug’s one of the best cinematic dragons ever, and Cumberbatch’s vocal performance is memorable and full of character. If Jackson and co. hadn’t been able to pull Smaug off, then the four-plus hours of film-time that led up to his appearance here would have been all for nothing; luckily, the buildup was worth it. He’s a fully-realized CG creation, and lots of credit has to go to the animators, who - in tandem with Cumberbatch - really give him a distinct personality. Dovetailing into that, we have the action sequences, which are first rate. There’s a river chase involving barrels that is one of the most fun setpieces in years, but even the smaller fights are exciting and packed with neat gags and bits of business. Jackson’s creativity is fully unleashed in these moments, and there are few filmmakers who have the eye for building fun sequences the way Jackson does. The production design needs a few words said about it, too, as I found it perhaps even more exquisite than the previous film (or even LORD OF THE RINGS); there’s a jaw-dropping attention to detail, particularly in the Lake-town set, and in conjunction with the beautiful cinematography, the movie is a delight to look at. Aurally, things are even better, with Howard Shore contributing a spectacular score, rich and powerful music that stands toe-to-toe with his masterpieces from the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy; it’s the score of the year. There are nitpicks, of course. The biggest one being that the character of Bilbo is, at best, a co-lead in this story, sharing importance with Thorin. Some people seem to have a real issue with this, and I do think there could have been ways to mitigate it to some extent, but it’s really a small point. Why? Because Thorin has the clearest and most effective story arc in the novel; from beginning to end, it is Thorin who changes the most, not Bilbo, and if the filmmakers want the conclusion of Thorin’s story in next year’s THERE AND BACK AGAIN to have the impact it deserves, foregrounding him in this installment was the wise move. The only other issue I’d say I have with the movie is also a very small one: this very much feels like a “middle” film, right down to the cliffhanger ending. The ending works, I think, because there’s not just a single cliffhanger, but rather there are multiple dangling threads - each interesting and compelling - that really do leave you wanting more (to use that cliche), instead of frustrated by the lack of closure. The last thing I want to say is in regards to Peter Jackson himself. The movie feels like a direct reflection of his desire to entertain, and there’s not a frame in this movie that doesn’t convey his exuberance and joy at being able to play in this world. THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG has just one goal - to make sure you leave the theater having had a blast. It more than accomplishes that, and it’s the finest adventure film of 2013. By Brett Blake As Christmas fast approaches, it won’t be difficult to find holiday-themed movies on TV, and there are a few films you can bank on being shown at least once sometime during the month of December. The undeniable classics will certainly pop up - MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET, IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE and, of course, A CHRISTMAS STORY will undoubtedly appear, as will the television specials from the 1960s, like RUDOLPH, FROSTY, A CHARLIE BROWN CHRISTMAS, and HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS. You’ll probably also find perennial favorites like HOME ALONE or SCROOGED or NATIONAL LAMPOON’S CHRISTMAS VACATION in the lineup somewhere. If you’re lucky, maybe you’ll get a GREMLINS sighting, perhaps a DIE HARD appearance… but for the most part, the networks keep things pretty conventional. That’s as it should be, I suppose, as we all probably enjoy these movies on a kind of cinematic comfort food level, and it’s always fun to see our favorites during the Christmas season (ditto for horror movies during October). Having said that, there are a small handful of Christmas-flavored movies that, for whatever reasons, don’t get much airtime during this time of year, and here are three I think deserve a little more appreciation. Black Christmas (1974) Director Bob Clark is best-known for his other Christmas film, 1983’s A CHRISTMAS STORY, and most people seem to be unaware that BLACK CHRISTMAS is his first cinematic take on the holiday. Whereas A CHRISTMAS STORY is 100-per-cent a comedy, this is a horror film, and the plot is a simple one: a group of sorority sisters are plagued by mysterious, obscene phone calls during Christmas break, and then… one by one… they begin to disappear. It’s basically a slasher film, but it’s one of the first, and it therefore helps lay out the blueprint for the era of slashers that would take over the horror genre with the release of HALLOWEEN in 1978; BLACK CHRISTMAS got there first, and it establishes many of the genre tropes and cliches that future horror filmmakers would then pick up and run with: point-of-view shots from the perspective of the killer, a cast whittled down until one resourceful young woman remains, and an ambiguously downbeat ending. It’s a better film than most slasher flicks you’ll find, though, because the characters are well-written (and well-acted), the depiction of the killer is interesting (and pretty darn spooky), and it has a nice sense of humor about itself without undercutting the intensely chilling events that take place. Obviously, for those who don’t like horror movies, this one probably isn’t for you, but for those who are game, this is a great film to watch - preferably alone in your house - on a dark, cold, windy winter’s night. Just be sure to stay away from the remake! Scrooge (1970) Few stories have been filmed as frequently as Charles Dickens' classic novel, A Christmas Carol (perhaps only the Dracula and Sherlock Holmes characters have had more cinematic adaptations). Everybody probably has a favorite version of the tale; many enjoy the 1951 Alastair Sim-starring version, while others might choose the terrific MUPPET CHRISTMAS CAROL, with Michael Caine as Scrooge, and still others might pick Bill Murray’s hilarious updated take from 1988, SCROOGED. Those are all great movies (and certainly worth seeing if you haven’t yet encountered them), but for me, the definitive film of A Christmas Carol remains this interpretation from 1970. Albert Finney - a young man at the time - is Scrooge, thoroughly curmudgeonly under some ingeniously subtle old age makeup, and he’s wonderful. The gauge with which I measure an actor’s interpretation of Scrooge involves how well the actor is able to sell the character’s transformation/awakening at the end of the story, and nobody has done it with the kind of heartfelt euphoria and gentle humor that Finney brings to the role. The last fifteen-or-so minutes of this movie are tremendous, a song-filled and exuberant conclusion that perfectly accompanies Scrooge’s redemption. Oh, wait, I did say it’s a musical, didn’t I? No? Well, it’s a musical! That fact alone is probably enough to turn off some of you more cynical folks out there, but the songs are (mostly) very catchy, and they all feel suitably “Christmas-y” in spirit. Also, the production design is fantastic, featuring a soundstage-bound version of Victorian London that’s quite atmospheric. You may think you’ve had your fill of Christmas Carol adaptations, but if you can stomach one more, give this one a look. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005) I’ll be honest, here: this isn’t really a Christmas movie. Oh, it’s set at Christmas, sure, and there are a few Christmas parties visited by the characters over the course of the story, but there’s nothing about the plot that requires the movie be set at Christmas. It’s just window-dressing. So why am I writing about KISS KISS BANG BANG, then? Because it’s a freakin’ great movie, that’s why! Part buddy-action-comedy, part noir-mystery, the movie follows Robert Downey Jr. as a small-time crook who inadvertently ends up in L.A. to audition for a movie role. While there, he gets embroiled in a mystery and finds himself partnered-up with a gay private investigator (played by Val Kilmer). Goofy, off-the-wall hijinks ensue.
The dialogue (courtesy of writer/director Shane Black, who was the director of IRON MAN 3 earlier this year) is absolutely hilarious, equally hard-edged and silly, and the interplay/sparring between Downey and Kilmer makes for some first-rate comedy. The way the movie simultaneously adheres to - and yet somehow makes fun of - classic noir ideas is also a reflection of how great a screenplay Black was able to put together for this. The movie came out at a time when Downey was just starting to rehabilitate his career after his drug-fueled missteps of the previous decade-plus, and it came-and-went from theaters rather quickly, which is unfortunate. Had it been released after 2008’s IRON MAN launched Downey to the top of the list of the biggest stars in the world, more people would probably have been able to give KISS KISS BANG BANG its due. Now, it's up to those of us who love the movie to speak out about it every chance we get, which is why I've included it here. Whatever movies you choose to watch this holiday season - be they the classics, or one of the under-the-radar films I’ve described above - settle down with a hot chocolate, some egg nog, or another beverage of choice, and enjoy the many facets and genres that Christmas cinema has to offer. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|