Tag Archives: Actor: Guy Pearce

Death Defying Acts

Death Defying Acts ended up not really fitting into the blog’s gestalt at all, but I thought it would when I sat down to watch it. It seemed to be in the general vein of The Illusionist or The Prestige, two movies I very much enjoyed, and Houdini is always an interesting historical figure to include in a narrative. Plus, with Guy Pearce and Catherine Zeta-Jones, the casting had promise. (Saoirse Ronan and Timothy Spall, it turned out, were in it as well.)

Where to begin with this movie? To start with the positive, I suppose, the art direction was superb, and the cinematography was pleasant (if not quite spectacular). Pearce does a lot of acting, much of it very interesting, and the other three gamely give it their best.

The fundamental problem is the screenplay.  It begins pleasant, but cliché: a plucky young Scottish girl (Ronan) and her mother (Zeta-Jones) are down-and-out entertainers, posing as psychics in low-budget vaudeville style shows. As an aside, asking an audience to ever believe Zeta-Jones is “down-and-out” is a bit of a stretch, though she does well enough with the accent that “Scottish” isn’t laughable. When Harry Houdini comes to town, Zeta-Jones’ character angles to get the money he offers for proof of genuine supernatural contact with the dead.

So far, so predictable. Ronan is aggressively adorable, Pearce and Zeta-Jones make eyes at one another, and Spall is Houdini’s disapproving manager/agent/assistant… it doesn’t really matter. Pearce sells Houdini as a consummate performer, haunted by his own private demons, and in a different movie could have been quite interesting. Up until this point, very average. There’s not much chemistry in the romance, and things seem to be moving in a very foreseeable direction.

Suddenly, though, almost out of the blue, it’s revealed that Zeta-Jones looks very much like Houdini’s (dead) mother did when she was young. The same dead mother he’s trying to contact. The same dead mother WHOSE WEDDING DRESS HE KEEPS IN A LOCKED TRUNK, creepy.

The same dead mother whose wedding dress he makes Zeta-Jones wear at a public séance. For science! But just when you think he’s about to go all Norman Bates on us, Ronan – whose awkward voice-overs don’t do the movie any favors – has an actual psychic experience, all Little Boy in Ragtime style, throwing the séance into chaos and, presumably, throwing us firmly into an alternate reality, as this would have made some headlines.

That’s fine. It’s historical fiction, and at this point, the creepy movie with a fantastical element was much more interesting than anything that preceeded it. By taking a turn for the macabre and the bizarre, I had hopes that Death Defying Acts would redeem itself. (It even has a near-silent but Hamlet-esque moment where Houdini contemplates suicide following the revelation that he wasn’t there when his mother died.)

But then the story fumbles in the final 15 minutes. Houdini comes to their little hut (in the graveyard), and we endure 10 minutes of terrible dialogue, 2 minutes of unsexy, PG-13 fumbling, and Zeta-Jones’ beautiful tears as Houdini drives off into the sunset. Ronan goes on about losing her psychic ability as she grew up, as Houdini is sucker-punched to death, and it’s all a bit of a trainwreck.

My friend and I theorized that, of the two screenwriters listed on the credits, one wrote the original, bad script, and one tried to fix it, but only really succeeded with a few scenes in and around the séance. We can’t know, of course. But the acting, the costumes, and the general design couldn’t save this from becoming a hot mess, in which a terrible ending dragged down even the likable parts of the beginning.

The real shame of it is that some of the elements of this could have been an excellent movie.  But wasting A talent on D material does no one any favors.

Grade: C- Despite Pearce’s good work and lovely visuals, the storytelling is deeply flawed.

Leave a comment

Filed under Review

Memento

(If, somehow, you haven’t yet seen Memento and you intend to, go out and watch it right now. I’ll wait. It’s on Netflix Instant. Go and come back – you really don’t want to know anything going in the first time.)

It has been several years since I last rewatched Memento, and I have to say it only gets better with age. Christopher Nolan has been all over the news in the past few years, between the critical acclaim for The Dark Knight and the slightly more mixed but still enthusiastic reaction to this summer’s Inception. But in rewatching Memento, I couldn’t help but wonder if he’ll ever make another film this tightly constructed again.

I am certainly not the first to wonder if filmmakers under constraint make better films, and I will be far from the last. But I think that giving the whole credit to the film’s minimalism is to undersell what an excellent neo-noir it really is. It’s not just good for a small, independent film; it’s good, period.

The acting is really quite stellar, from the entire cast. Guy Pearce is an actor I still expect to become a big deal, and he hasn’t quite managed yet; he was in the semi-blockbuster Count of Monte Cristo, and pretty much everyone agrees he was excellent in L.A. Confidential, but in trying to come up with more recent examples of his skill, everyone seems to be stuck beyond about 2003. (I’d forgotten, but I had a small moment of glee seeing him ever so briefly in The Hurt Locker.) But here, he’s in top form, making a conceit that could easily swing into ridiculousness utterly believable, heartbreaking and terrifying. Carrie-Anne Moss also turns in a remarkably cutting, chilling performance as Natalie.

The cast also really has a handle on the black humor that leavens the script; I forgot until I rewatched it how often the movie coaxes a genuine laugh, if one tinged with nerves. The atmosphere, while terse, is not without tenderness or levity, which makes the terrible things that happen all the worse.

The filming is clever without looking clever. The black and white forward-moving section and the color backward-moving section are both sharply lit, and look of a piece with one another. When they merge, it seems appropriate. As an audience member, it doesn’t feel like a trick but like a reveal. The nods to classic noir are certainly there: windows and window-coverings like blinds and curtains are everywhere in the frame.  The lighting is really remarkable, but doesn’t grab your attention on first viewing. We’re constantly given information that, like Leonard, we have a limited ability to decode.

No review of Memento can ignore the strength of its screenplay. The idea of tiny segments, arranged backward, is so elegantly simple it’s insane. The film puts the viewer in its protagonist’s shoes, repeatedly dropping us in medias res to try and decode the story as best we can. Unlike Leonard, however, we can retain what happens next, adding it on to what we learn each time. By adding the forward-moving half the narrative, the filmmakers also ensure we have some sort of context.

(I also love how the phone conversations seem, at first, simply a convenient way to unload exposition, but then turn out to be a character reveal for Teddy as well as a small building block in Leonard’s interaction with the hotel clerk.)

The thing about Memento is that is genuinely thrilling. The sense of isolation it creates is pervasive and complete, moreso than even the characters can be fully aware of. The subtle ways in which is builds paranoia are remarkable. What’s crossed out on the back of Natalie’s photograph? Why are things missing from the police files? How does he have a Jaguar when he clearly can’t work?

I imagine, though I don’t know, that The Prestige would have been a bit more like this film if it weren’t, by necessity, a creature of Hollywood. But that’s just speculation.

What’s not speculation is that Memento is one of my very favorite modern noirs, and rewatching it is always a pleasure. Rewatching it with someone who’s never seen it before is doubly rewarding. It is not for everyone, I admit – I’ve had several people I respect tell me they loathe it. But for me, I think it already looks timeless, and I look forward to watching it 20 or 30 years from now with the same pleasure I do today.

Grade: A I can think of nothing I would change in this movie; even its imperfections support the whole.

Leave a comment

Filed under Review

A Tale of Two Dumas Movies

I recently re-watched both the 1993 version of The Three Musketeers and the 2002 The Count of Monte Cristo, in one double feature. My friend and I had originally intended to watch just the former, but it was so laughably bad that we decided we needed a palate cleanser. (Plus Michael Wincott is in both of them, if in a rather minor role in the later, so there was a secondary connection besides the Dumas adaptation factor.  The same friend and I have also recently watched The Man In the Iron Mask, but that, if it appears, will be another review.)

The Count of Monte Cristo is not a great movie in the sense that The Godfather Part II is a great movie. It’s campy and light, and was not designed to win any awards, but it still fulfills its purpose almost perfectly. The Three Musketeers, not a great movie when it came out, has also dated terribly. But even with the decade between the two films, comparing and contrasting may be in order.

First, and probably foremost, is the screenplay. Both, by necessity, radically simplify their source material. There is simply no way to make a two hour feature from books this long without simplifying, and sometimes changing, the original plot. As I haven’t yet read The Three Musketeers, I will judge these movies based only on their own plots, not as adaptations.

Even when you’re writing an adventure film, the rules of basic logic should apply. Albert can be Dantes’ son, because the film makes sure you know he was conceived the night Dantes is arrested. Villefort’s motivation for setting Dantes up is well-explained. The pieces of the Count’s revenge are, if simple, laid out in an enjoyable and understandable way.

With Three Musketeers, my friend and I asked each other many questions. Why does D’Artagnan attack the queen’s guards? Who is the random guy who shows up to arrest Milday De Winter? Are those cannonballs exploding? Why on earth would Richelieu make a move against the crown before an alliance with Buckingham, and was Oliver Platt drunk for the entirety of filming?

If he was, I can hardly blame him. The dialogue is absurd, whether delivered with staunch earnestness by Chris O’Donnell or with theatrical melodrama by Tim Curry.

Watch it without laughing. I dare you.

While Monte Cristo has an unnecessary line or two (I’ve never been fond of “I’m a count, not a saint,” because it doesn’t make sense), it’s mostly straight ahead dialogue. It’s theatrical, but not flowery, often straight to the point – and the screenwriter bothered to make different characters sound different, which is more than Musketeers bothered to do.

Granted, some of this gets mixed up in delivery, which is the realm of actors and directors. Monte Cristo has a solid cast all around: Jim Caviezel is perfect in his combination of hapless naïveté and cold revenge, Guy Pearce’s drunken discontent gets better every time I see the film, Dagmara Dominczyk is competent and very pretty, and Richard Harris is Richard Harris, so there’s that. Like the Errol Flynn pictures of the ’30s, the acting furthers the story; you have heroes to cheer, pretty girls to look at, and villains to boo. It’s not complicated, and it has its issues, but it’s a familiar, reliable plot structure.

I think Kiefer Sutherland’s Athos is supposed to be the person we root for in Musketeers, but the film can’t decide whether it’s him or D’Artagnan. Which is fine, because neither of them quite work as the hero, dramatically. Sutherland seems to be doing a dry run for Jack Bauer, and seems like a refugee from a totally different sort of plot. D’Artagnan is the unattractive Gryffindor: bold, arrogant, and often stupid. I suppose I don’t want the child-king to die, but hell if I care for their sake. As for the other two Musketeers, Platt is affable but clownish, as his Porthos as nothing to do except wench and make cracks about the Empress of America; Charlie Sheen shows up, says his lines, and collects his paycheck. The only one who really acquits himself is Michael Wincott, who is actually rather menacing as Roquefort (especially compared to Curry’s scenery-chewing Richelieu).

Monte Cristo has the slightly better design, even allowing for the differences in technology, and is much more competently lit. The fight choreography is Musketeers is, even to my semi-untrained eye, quite terrible. And Monte Cristo boasts an excellent score for an adventure movie, while every time I hear the power chords for “All for Love,” I can’t help cracking up.

The greater point I took away from watching both films back to back is that just because you’re making a silly pseudo-historical adventure doesn’t mean you should give up on demanding the basic pillars of good cinematic storytelling. You need a story that the audience can follow, characters that they actually care about, and stakes that keep their interest. Musketeers is a mess of nonsensical subplots, and is peopled by one-dimensional cutouts. Monte Cristo is a simple tale of a man who goes through hell and comes back out on the other side (after a great deal of adventure and revenge, but even so). Doing something simple, and doing it well, is hard.

And no matter what the genre, demanding a movie make sense is never too much to ask.

Leave a comment

Filed under Review