Blood Simple.

Blood Simple. (1984)
Starring: Frances McDormand, John Getz and Emmet Walsh
Directed by: Joel Coen
Rating: *** out of 5

I've seen quite a few of the Coen Bros. movies over the years... starting with Fargo and moving my way to The Man Who Wasn't There to Barton Fink and most recently The Big Lebowski, Millers Crossing and now Blood Simple.

I had heard really good things about Blood Simple. Obviously it was the brothers' first film and had been ranked up with Miller's Crossing as not only one of their best films, but one of the best films in the last 25 years.

So I popped this one in to my DVD player... and it took me three tries to get in to the film so, not such a ringing endorsement on that end... the first... pretty much 45 minutes of this film moves along so god-damned slow it's just really hard for me to get interested. Thank God for Emmet Walsh though, he makes this film what it is and kept me interested enough on the 3rd try to see it through till the end.

So the story is a (now all to common) case of miscommunication where a jealous husband (Dan Hedaya), private investigator turned hitman (Walsh), a cheating wife (McDormand) and the one she's cheating on (Getz) are all tangled up on a web of lies, deciet and paranoia.

Frances McDormand's character (Abby) is contemplating leaving her husband Julian Marty, confiding this information in one of the bar tenders from her husband's establishment, Ray. The two get caught up in the moment and spend the night at the motel. Problem is that Abby's husband Julian, had already suspected her of cheating on him and sent a private investigator named Loren Visser to trail them.

As one would expect, Marty can't just forgive and forget. He calls up Visser a second time, only now that he knows who his wife is sleeping with, he wants both of them dead. As Visser says "Well, if they pay's right... I'll do it." Surprise surprise that Mr. Visser, a real Texas cowboy, isn't exactly a man of his word. He double crosses Marty and takes his money and thinks he's got all of his bases covered and is $10,000 richer. But... as in any good Coen brothers film... things don't always work out quite that... simply.

As with my other reviews, I think that it is definately made up parts that give it a proper final rating so here we go with the categories of Acting, Plot, Cinematography, Entertainment Value... and because this IS a Coen brothers film... how it matches up w/ their other films.

Acting: **-1/2

Joel Coen is really good at not only picking a good cast, but getting the best out of his actors... which is why this film was so surprising in its lack of acting skill. McDormand was pretty good, very good by the end of the film actually... and Emmet Walsh was just fantastic, but the rest of the key parts of this venture fell very flat, especially the lead of the film, John Getz. I'm not sure if it was just the character and he actually pulled it off well... but I was just totally bored by his character and couldn't relate or sympathize with any of them.

In fact, if there was anyone you sympathize with, it's the P.I./Assasssin for scamming three jackasses who have absolutely no respect for each other.

Plot: ****

This is one of the best aspects of Blood Simple. Especially for it's time, this film noir/mystery/thriller was quite a breath of fresh air and even 22 years after its inital release, still holds up very well. You are quite aware of what is going on although there are definately some twists and some tense moments.

In fact, I think the tension in the last 20 minutes of the film is some of the best I've seen in quite a long time and you do find yourself rooting for McDormand in the end, but then, w/ the last lines of the film, you once again end up moarning Visser's fate.

As far as Coen Bros. films go, this plot is actually pretty straight forward and easy to understand which, I suppose, is a good starting point for the duo, but once you've seen Fargo, Big Lebowski, and Barton Fink, you're kind of like... eh, so what.

Cinematography/Editing: ***

The Coen brothers do a good job w/ their cinematography here under the direction of Barry Sonnennfeld (Get Shorty/Men in Black). I especially liked the use of headlights in the mirrors/windows. There weren't a lot of interesting camera angles here... but the tension was built very well in the last 1/2 of the film with the editing and tricks the film used (blood seeping through the towel in the car/bullet holes through the plaster) so it was definately above average in that respect.

Entertainment Value: ***

This is definately a film of two halves... as I explained earlier, it was very hard to pay attention or even remotely care about this film for the first 45 minutes until the big double cross occurs w/ Visser and Marty. Then suddenly things become interesting and it really picks up the pace... but even then so much of the last half is dragged down by the back and forth of Abby and Ray who each think each other is the reason Marty is "missing."

That being said, I really did enjoy the last 20 minutes of this film quite a lot. You know that Visser is out there looking to tie up the loose ends of his double cross while Abby and Ray are fighting amongst themselves, not realizing the real threat that has been there from the beginning.

Coen Comparison: **-1/2

I love Coen brothers films as much as I love Tarantino films and Hitchcock films, but that doesn't mean that I don't have my favorites and will ultimately compare these films when they stack up. When it comes to Hitchcock I enjoy tension where you're not sure why something is happening... this is why I enjoy North by Northwest, The Birds, and more than say The Lady Vanishes, Strangers on a Train, Notorious, or even Psycho... where as w/ Tarantino, I love the films with awesome dialogue which is why Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill are higher up on my list than Jackie Brown and Reservoir Dogs.

I suppose when it comes to Coen brothers films, I like the ones that have comedy mixed in with increasingly complicated situations, hence why I think Big Lebowski, Fargo and Barton Fink are really my favorites over films like The Man that Wasn't There, Millers Crossing and now Blood Simple. As I see it, Blood Simple is just too slow moving and boring for my tastes.

I'm not someone that dislikes slow moving films... I can find myself enjoying slow-moving westerns or dramas as long as the characters are interesting and the plot gets me involved... Blood Simple just really didn't do any of that for me and by the time I got to the end where I was actually interested in the movie, there was only 20-30 minutes left and I had felt like I wasted an hour just getting to that point.

My final thoughts are that this was an enjoyable film... and will probably be much more enjoyable on a second viewing... but Blood Simple left me with such a bad taste in my mouth after being privledged to other, more enjoyable films from the Coen brothers, that I think it's going to be a very long time before I get around to viewing it a second time.

So with all the categories tabulated:

Acting: **-1/2
Plot: ****
Cinematography: ***
Entertainment Value: ***
Coen Comparion: **-1/2

We get the final total of *** out of 5 for Blood Simple.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Starring: Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, and Keira Knightley
Directed by: Gore Verbinksi
Rating: ***-1/2

It's been a while since I had seen the original Pirates of the Caribbean... but I remembered the basic jist of the story and having played through Kingdom Hearts 2, I got a little bit reacquainted with the characters and being a Johnny Depp and Keira Knightley fan, I was geared up to see the first of two back-to-back sequels to the 2004 film: Curse of the Black Pearl

The basic story with this film (and subsequently, the 3rd installment: At World's End) is twofold. 1st: Captain Jack Sparrow (Depp), back under the command of the Black Pearl, is desperately searching for a new treasure... and like the last film, this "treasure" is important to Mr. Sparrow because the longer it goes unclaimed, the more likely he is to have to repay his debt to Davey Jones (played wonderfully in this film by Bill Nighy).

2nd: After aiding and abbetting the escape of Jack Sparrow from charges against him, Elizabeth Swan (Knightley) and Will Turner (Bloom) are brought up on charges and sentenced to death. Of course, as is a common theme in this film, it seems everyone has a price. Now "Lord" Cutler Beckett of the East Indian Trading Company wants the magical compass that helped Jack Sparrow find the cursed gold in the 1st film. In exchange for his assistance of retrieving the compass, Beckett is willing to give Turner a full pardon.

Of course, as Will Turner eventually meets up with Captain Sparrow, these two stories intertwine in what becomes a fast-paced action movie the likes of which no comic book sequel could ever match and where as with Superman Returns and you were left looking at your watch at the end of that 2-1/2 hour venture, you're left looking at your watch as the credits of Dead Man's Chest saying "What!? It's over already!?"


Here's how the film broke down for me in the key areas of Acting, Plot, Cinematography/Special Effects/Make-up, and Entertainment Value:


Acting: ***-1/2

Johnny Depp and Bill Nighy alone give this film an automatic three stars. There is no character in my recent memory that is played so magnificently as Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow. The surprising part of this film though, is that Bill Nighy (Shaun of the Dead) is damned near Depp's equal as the infamous Davey Jones cephalopod form. Thankfully Depp and Nighy's acting takes place (for the most part) as part of two different storylines, so the acting spread evenly enough throughout the film. Of course, compared to these two character actors, everyone else minus the ocassional quick back and forth between two former Pearl crew members, Pintell and Ragitti, out for their own personal gain, the acting is flatter than Keira Knightley's chest.

Plot: **

Sadly, plot and plot holes is what really drags down this film. Thank god there is enough action to try and willfully ignore this heavily forced and loosely tied plotline. From the get-go, everything from the bungled warrants for the arrest of Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann to the Lord Beckett desire to have the compass (for a reason that isn't revealed until more than half-way in to the film) a series of convenient circumstances and poorly explained surprises is all that keeps this film from being a poor man's Pulp Fiction... actually no... not just poor... we're talking homeless, living out of a grocery cart and sleeping on heat grate-poor.

Cinematography/Special Effects/Make-Up: ****

Finally! Something that Bruckheimer and Verbinski know how to do... and they do it magnificently here. From the opening scene to the giant wheel fight scene to the oh so scary and ominous KRAKEN (or is it Krayken? Krahken?) it's damned near seemless but CGI is CGI is CGI and it still makes it hard to suspend disbelief when you use it so heavily in some scenes. Also, while I am a guy and Keira Knightley is hotter than the surface of the sun, I don't need to be introduced to her breasts and THEN her character. Also, there were scenes/shots that really should have been cut out of the film and needlessly added length to an already lengthy film... but I suppose that's more of a plot problem then cinematography.

Entertainment Value: ****-1/2

One of the best times I've had in the movie theatre since seeing the Aristocrats... even better actually, because not only was I laughing, I was totally absorbed by the action sequences and was found rooting even harder for Jack Sparrow in the end. For a movie whose originator I saw twice, but hadn't really cared about for the past year or so... this film does an excellent job of making you care for the characters... hell, by the end I was even feeling sorry for Will Turner. Will (Orlando Fuckin' Bloom) Turner. That, my friends, is an accomplishment in movie making.

Easily the most entertaining film of the year so far... and IMO, as far as superhero movies go, not even Spiderman can top this one for entertainment value.

So that's how it breaks down and how we get a 3-1/2 out of 5-star rating for Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest but make no mistake that I will be seeing this film once or twice more thsi summer and I'll be eagerly anticipating the release of the third installment: At World's End next summer.

I highly reccomend seeing this film and helping it surge ahead in the box office. There hasn't been a more deserving film to rule the B.O. in quite a while... but that'll all change of course on August 18th when we finally get to see SNAKES ON A MUTHAFUCKIN' PLANE!

Strangers on a Train

Strangers on a Train (1951)
Starring: Farley Granger and Robert Walker
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: ***1/2

Strangers on a Train is one of those movies that I've really wanted to see for a long time and thanks to the power of Netflix, I was able to watch it tonight.

I don't neccessarily consider myself the biggest Hitchcock fan... I mean, I really didn't enjoy Pscyho that much (blasphemy!) and I haven't even been able to get through all of Vertigo yet (The horror!) but I was expecting good things from this film and for the most part I wasn't disappointed.

Everyone pretty much knows how this movie starts out, two strangers, one is a tennis star by the name of Guy Haines (Granger) and the other is a man named Bruno Antony (Walker) who seems slightly deranged from the get go. Bruno begins chatting up Guy while they are in the same passenger car, dropping hints that he's been paying attention to the gossip pages and knows that Guy is in the process of a messy divorce with his wife and has been seen around town with another woman.

Guy tries to ignore the conversation, but Bruno insists... bringing up the idea that Guy probably wants his wife taken care of. In fact, Bruno himself says his father is someone who he doesn't care for much either and the perfect plan would be for them to swap murders... he does Guys and Guy does his. Criss Cross.

While this all seems laughable to Guy... Bruno doesn't seem to be kidding but once off the train, he doesn't think much of it, that is until he is confronted by Bruno in the middle of the night saying that he did his part, now it is Guy's turn to do his... and don't even think about turning him in to the police because Guy will be labeled an accessory. After all, who are they going to believe? The man who never met Guy's wife or the husband with a perfect motive to do away with his wife?

In typical Hitchock style, this is a film about mistaken identity, running from the law, and trying to entrap the real killer so the innocent man can go free. Personally, this really isn't one of my favorite Hitchock films... I was more of a fan of his other train-based venture: The Lady Vanishes and if I had to place it on a list of Hitchcock films I've seen so far, it would be lagging behind North by Northwest, The Birds, The Lady Vanishes, and Rear Window... that being said, this is definately one of the better films in cinema history.

Hitchock is famous for breaking the rules and setting the standard for these types of films... but I can't help but think Strangers on a Train is a rehashing of some of his earlier, British films, but at the same time, a test run for later films like North by Northwest which, IMO, kept things interesting throughout the entire film where as Strangers on a Train really seemed to drag in the middle.

On a 5-star scale, I'd give this one a 3-1/2... like I said, it's definately above average as far as cinema standards go and a neccessity to see (for fans of Hitchock or cinema in general), but with a man like Alfred Hitchcock you can only judge his films compared to the standard he has set in his comparable works and my opinion is that this one just doesn't make the grade.

That being said, I think I'll rewatch this one and see if my opinion changes.