Change Your Image
filmmakerck17
Reviews
Capote (2005)
Capote failed to sweep a lamen off his feet
Beautiful cinematography. This is the most prominent thing I took from Capote. From the first frame I was captivated by the imagery. Being a filmmaker myself I was stunned by the beautiful camera work and lush Kansas landscapes.
We now go from what I thought deserved those three stars and delve into the seven missing stars and what I felt didn't deserve them. Keeping in mind that I went into this film a lamen, completely unaware of its contents, who Capote was, and what I was about to see. (and if you try to use that as a defense for this film, I'd only regurgitate storytelling 101 -that any good story should appeal to and inform those who aren't familiar with the subject matter, or else why tell a story at all? I didn't have to be a machinist to enjoy "The Machinist", I shouldn't have to be a Capote fan to enjoy his story) My first annoyance occurred in the first scene featuring Phillip Seymore Hoffman in the city telling jokes. I noticed a directing style that reminded me of Dylan Kidd ala Rodger Dodger. A sort of shaky hand-held camera-work with sparse cutting and focusing on certain things in the background from time to time. I thought it suited Rodger Dodger because it was constant and served the narrative. Capote? Not exactly considering the cinematography ended up seeming random by the end. Indeed it distracted me a bit considering that the previous cinematography in the beginning was so well done and would have satisfied me if it had continued consistently.
From the first moment, PCH's performance distracted me. I kept finding myself concentrating on his acting. To be honest, I thought the voice he used was utterly ridiculous and forced at times. But as I watched it, I had a feeling folks would be praising it as the best acting of the year. I thought the emotion he could well up was extraordinary, but the voice seemed forced to me, be it a right on duplicate of the original Capote's voice or not. And I also feel that he was straining to get the caricature down so much that we lost some of the humanity in his performance. I think he's a great actor, but no human being could act competently through all those layers of mannerisms and that unnatural voice.
I thought this film failed at placing me anywhere but vaguely in the same room with Capote at random times and intervals. I felt as though I wasn't seeing the pivotal moments, but that I was seeing random in-betweens. Only at a few key moments did I feel as though I was in Capotes shoes. The film failed to put me in Kansas where the family was murdered for more than that brief instance toward the beginning. It failed to put me in that cell on death row for more than a second or two. I never felt "in" on the decision making process at any point and I basically felt as though I was following Capote around for a while and waiting for new information the rest of the time. As time went on I began to just feel as though I was witnessing events presented to me randomly as the big decisions had been cut out. I got a very distinct disconnected feeling. Of course feeling in his shoes is a subjective thing, but I felt as though no one but die-hard Capote fans would be able to feel as though they were truly along for the ride.
I believe this film wasted the majority of its time. From a storytelling standpoint it seemed to drag at every stage, a lot of its time spend on dead air, irrelevant conversations, and repetition of already known facts from said conversations. Not enough information was divulged in the given time-frame. We as an audience should have known the reasons for Capote going to Kansas in the first place to write this book -all in great detail, the relationship with Bruce Greenwood's character(they wasted this actor in my opinion, but I say so as a fan), and basically have gotten some kind of resolution other than the text given before the credits. I never really got what Capote or any supporting characters were like on a personal level. Maybe to see his life fall apart at the end? That would have made this waiting pay off.
Other than beautiful city/landscapes, this film from a directorial standpoint lacked anything exceedingly interesting. Basically it consisted of harsh cuts and a few fades to black. I found that most of the angles were just ordinary 'get the job done' kinda shots, maybe some interesting camera movement here or there, but nothing truly engrossing. I was constantly able to realize "Hey, I'm watching a movie... and it's pretty boring." In all, I thought the same story could have been told 100% better in the same time-frame. More information, more convincing characters, faster dialog, and a faster pacing altogether could have done this film well. Did this great story really need any/all that? Well, in the end, every element of this story has been told before. FCH has played a flamboyantly gay character very similar to Capote in another film called "Flawless". Killers on deathrow telling their story to one lucky journalist with a lot in common with them -is certainly well worn territory, "Killer: A Journal of Murder" for one. And families of four have been slain in a much more gripping fashion to be sure, in more films than I care to mention.
I'm left wanting more information; more about every character in this film. There was certainly time enough for double the info we got, and it would have served to better flesh out whats really what and who's really who and why.
The Edge (1997)
Misunderstood Masterpiece
It's exceedingly easy to see how some people might not like this film. The most frequent reason in my opinion is that some just don't 'get it'. While busy focusing on pointing out rather trivial and nit-picky things, they are so far off the central point and weight of what the film is truly offering that the most rewarding aspects are lost on them.
Firstly, a very interesting and off center look into survival in the wilderness. Unconventional in the way that any alternate -in what I would consider "Hollywood"- version of this film would feature mostly everything taking place in that exotic cabin where this menacing digital bear(s) cuts the power and kills people off one by one because they left food out. Instead we are taken deep into the wilderness for real, with no comfort or near-by home base to return to. Decisions made don't feel forced, they feel natural and logical. At no point was I compelled to yell obscenities at the screen protesting character stupidity(leg cut excluded). Much of the Bear chase presented immediate solutions, with no choice to the point where the most illogical choice -to actually make a stand and kill this bear- becomes the ONLY choice, for all other options have expired.
Secondly, upon close inspection of the performances, the acting is spot on. I'd call the performances far from "wooden"! I think they were heart-felt, high-energy, and consistent. Of course, if you aren't paying attention, certainly it would seem as though Alec Baldwin's character, Bob, shifts toward the end as he 'turns' on Anthony Hopkins' character, Charles, with his attempt to kill him. However, it doesn't take much more than an above 8th grade level of comprehension to get that Bob has been cynically plotting to kill Charles far before the film even begins. That scene in the cabin was simply his chance to finally unburden his feelings toward the situation and justify what he was about to do(made final by the "For All The Nights" discovery). Upon watching the film a second time through, it's evident that Bob was able to suppress the impending deed (which in my opinion was something he thought he HAD to do in the end) for the more imminent task of survival, and even taking those feelings and burying them for the time being.
There is also an interesting element of male bonding in the face of adversity-not overcoming the vices and evils that cement Bob to his ultimate deed. Also impressive was the extensive knowledge, yet honest innocence of Charles being something of a recluse from conventional thinking. To the end giving Bob the benefit of the doubt as a man worth preserving; such a sad tale of a very lonely, rich man(never feel sorry for a man that owns a plane); indeed two men who through this experience could have been friends if not for the complexity of their 'other' lives back in civilization. That said, Bob's reasoning was justified to Bob and I could understand his position and motives.
Bobs confrontation of Charles in the clearing tells a very deep rooted stereotype he has for the wealthy class, not really getting that Charles was at the very least an exception to that rule if not a shining example of what was the better human being. In any case Bob felt as though he was entitled to Mickey more-so than Charles, even implying that Mickey and he would be together if not for Charles' wealth. This hatred remained too deep to ignore even after their experience.
And I'm sorry, but to see that fundamental stand-up and confidence chant (what one man can do another can do) despite lingering fear in Bobs face gets me saying "hell yeah" each and every time. One of the party having already suffered death and devouring by this behemoth, the fight was believable as rational thought ended up being the key. Horribly outmatched, they owed a lot to courage and luck. In my opinion the film became sobering upon the death of their friend by the bear, and I always breath a sigh of relief watching that bear laying there dead, the two exhausted men leaning against it, out of breath, as we swallow what we just went through.
Thus, survival at that point was over and resolved in my opinion. These men could survive in the wilderness having passed what I thought to be an ultimate test. I also believe that, after the bear slaying, more time had elapsed than a lot of reviewers give credit for. The fact that they made clothing, food, and other things out of the bear to me marked the passage of a good deal of time.
What I also saw was a very natural and gradual unraveling of their character as the experience wore on them, until the core of things finally prevailed in the end. And it wasn't the deceit or even the cheating. It was in the end about two men, one dying (justly) yet somehow I felt sad to see him go. Because on what turned out to be his death bed, he offered Mickey's innocence in this business of doing Charles in. An act of virtue from a character who had previously only acted in his own interest got to me. Plus Charles' bond to him was enough to put me on his side and root for this attempted murderer to live.
In my opinion the depth, scope, and insight into darker aspects of the human condition go largely unnoticed in this film, for people go in expecting bears, Baldwin, and Hollywood and usually only see what they expect to see. No more, no less. I feel that this film was nicely filled out, packed with little things I loved and fundamental things that moved and entertained me. I hate to see relatively high-brow stuff being overlooked and passed off as low-brow, but I suppose The Edge remains a sleeper.